Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Blaster Master on Oct 5, 2007 12:33:54 GMT -5
Wow, how scummy is that Pygmy Rugger!? ...Snipping the part of Roosh's post to remove the context. ... just... WOW!
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Blaster Master on Oct 5, 2007 12:35:30 GMT -5
Huh!? How come one wow got filtered but not the other one? Does it require an ! after it? wow!
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Oct 5, 2007 12:36:20 GMT -5
Obviously, my case against Blaster Master is getting no traction. In the interest of getting off the Ralph Nader train early, I'm going to
unvote Blaster
As for Cookies, I'm still not sure there's a whole lot of there there. Slip #2, pointed out by CatinaSuit, is problematic because all it really indicates is that Cookies' role PM might not be the same as Cat's. Even if true, there are pro-town explanations for this, so it's not necessarily what I'd call a scum tell.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Oct 5, 2007 12:46:50 GMT -5
Everyone's favorite time of day:
6- ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies (Captain Klutz, drainbead, FCoD, CiaS, Pygmy, Hal Briston )
5- drainbead (Captain Spaceman Blam, Dotchan, Idle Thoughts, dnooman, Roosh)
11 of 23 votes cast with 23 alive it takes 12 to lynch.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Blaster Master on Oct 5, 2007 13:15:46 GMT -5
Okay, I've been thinking (don't worry, no math coming up ) about my suspicion of Drainbead and her grammatical attack on Roosh and now Pygmy Rugger attacking Roosh as well on demonstratably shaky grounds (considering that the sentence that puts the question in context was snipped from immediately prior to the quoted material). So... As some have pointed out, Roosh's claim would also be a convenient claim to make by scum, either way allowing for him repeatedly survive the Night. Now, if we assume for a moment that Roosh is in fact pro-town, then we can surmise that he is likely telling the truth (and we have some bastard mods) or, less likely, he is deliberately falsifying his powers to either avoid getting killed as vanilla (poor form) or attempting to conceal a power role assuming the scum would believe he wouldn't lie to the town. Thus, scum are faced with a dilemma... leave alive someone who isn't likely to get lynched anytime soon and could possibly be trying to reverse the informational advantage on the scum OR risk the high probability that he IS telling the truth and take them out themselves, and risk wasting a kill AND losing a fellow scum. Neither of these outlooks is particularly bright to the scum. However, they can circumvent both of these by attempting to get the town to do their dirty work for them. Thus, they would need to ensure that that he remains under constant scrutiny to ensure that the town eventually decides to lynch him because of the convenience of his claim AND that, if he does actually have a different power, if he comes clean about it, no one believes him. The above scenario also applies if he is scum, but not aligned with the rest (as they'd be assuming he was pro-town). However, the same issue exists if we assume he is pro-scum. An easy way to get votes out and mix up the voting charts is to find shaky reasons to FOS and vote for your fellow scum. This also serves the purpose of helping to prevent the votes from actually turning into a lynch-wagon. Conversely, if we assume that those attacking Roosh are pro-town, then they must also realize that it is not in our best interest to lynch him at this time. And, they wouldn't stick to such weak grammar reasons, or deliberately removing context to rely on making their points. Further, none of them are accompanied by additional evidence or votes, or even FOSs, just "I want an explaination" sort of posts. Thus, I find any pro-town motivation behind their behaviors to be highly lacking. Thus, Drainbead and Pygmy Rugger neck and neck on my suspicion list, yes, they're both ahead of Storyteller, and Hockey Monkey is probably in fourth (I didn't want you to feel left out ). A few others are farther behind like Atarus and mtgman... but neither has been posting much for several days so it's hard to update my suspicion, but I won't let it simply fade away because they're absent either. And, before people call me out for "defending Roosh", as I've seen a little bit of that... I'm not. None of these arguments have any bearing on where his loyalties lie at all. In fact, I found I tended to agree with some of ui's arguments against him yesterday; however, I do not believe it is in our best interest to lynch him at this time, so it is not worth my time due to his claim. That said, though I am rebutting arguments against him, I am attempting to do so without any regard to his alignment. In fact, as well demonstrated by my crusade against Storyteller, I find arguments that have questionable motivations and weak premises to be fairly strong scum tells as these sorts of arguments are often used by the scum to manipulate vote counts, available information, and the general opinon of the town.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 5, 2007 13:26:59 GMT -5
Wow, how scummy is that Pygmy Rugger!? ...Snipping the part of Roosh's post to remove the context. ... just... wah! Would you care to tell me how this: <snip> Hockeymonkey: dislike her usage of "bandwagon", think its dumb, but meh. <snip> would add any additional context? I snip almost every single quote I've ever made, at least 90%. I didn't think the rest of the post was relevant to my question. Speaking of questions, I addressed a question to Roosh, asking why he would let the scum know of his power. At least one person has quoted both of those questions to him (although I'm not sure if he's been on to see the second yet), and I haven't gotten an answer from him yet. If I see something out of wack, you're darn right I'm going to call him on it.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Oct 5, 2007 13:33:40 GMT -5
Blaster, I actually agree with you here about drainbead and pygmy. It seems they are trying to keep the Roosh pot stirred enough to get a lynch going on him. It's definitely not pro-town in motivation to do so. That along with some of the other points against her will most likely result in me voting for drainbead. I have some more reading to do and will cast a vote soon.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 5, 2007 13:44:50 GMT -5
I don't get your logic here. It seems twisted again. My definition of bandwagon is someone who has at least five or six votes against them already. Although it also has how many people are currently in the game wagered in. If someone votes for someone else, and they are the only ones doing so, and they later unvote said person...and then even LATER a whole mishmosh of others vote for said person, I would not say that the very first person to do so was on the "bandwagon". I actually think it would be wrong to say that and very misleading. Hence, more suspicion for you. zumachan Post # Action Player Current Tally 205 vote Idle Thoughts 1 232 vote sinjin 2 363 unvote sinjin 1 473 unvote Idle Thoughts 0 836 vote Idle Thoughts 1 839 vote diomedes 2 984 vote roosh 3 989 vote hockeymonkey 4 991 vote catinasuit 5 993 vote cookies 6 996 vote madtheswine 7 1004 vote blastermaster 8 1006 vote pygmyrugger 9 1029 vote sinjin 10 1030 vote drainbead 11 1040 vote greedysmurf 12 1052 unvote hockeymonkey 11 1054 unvote cookies 10 1057 unvote diomedes 9 1069 unvote Idle Thoughts 8 1070 unvote pygmyrugger 7 1075 unvote drainbead 6 1076 unvote madtheswine 5 1135 vote diomedes 6 1147 unvote blastermaster 5 1167 vote cookies 6 1185 vote drainbead 7 1203 vote diggitcamara 8 1247 unvote greedysmurf 7 1260 unvote diomedes 6 1316 vote hal briston 7 1322 vote zeriel 8 1325 vote madtheswine 9 1330 vote fcod 10 1332 vote diomedes 11 1388 vote mtgman 12 1397 vote Idle Thoughts 13 1420 vote blastermaster 14 1442 vote pygmyrugger 14
CatInASuit Post # Action Player Current Tally 1066 vote atarus 1 1084 vote yattara 2 1086 vote pygmyrugger 3 1097 vote diomedes 4 1113 vote idle thoughts 5 1135 unvote diomedes 4 1147 vote blastermaster 5 1191 vote storyteller 6 1209 vote fcod 7 1252 vote hockeymonkey 8 1254 vote captainklutz 9 1260 vote diomedes 10 1265 vote zumachan 11 1269 vote dnooman 12 1292 vote panamajack 13 1309 unvote diomedes 12 1311 vote diomedes 13 1318 unvote zumachan 12 1323 unvote storyteller 11 1330 unvote fcod 10 1332 unvote diomedes 9 1337 unvote panamajack 8 1338 vote panamajack 9 1339 unvote atarus 8 1357 unvote hockeymonkey 7 1358 unvote dnooman 6 1397 unvote idle thoughts 5 1420 unvote blastermaster 4 1442 unvote pygmyrugger 3
Roosh Post # Action Player Current Tally 54 vote idle thoughts 1 96 vote blastermaster 2 157 vote storyteller 3 205 unvote idle thoughts 2 283 vote zeriel 3 350 vote drainbead 4 363 vote sinjin 5 364 vote dnooman 6 365 vote hal briston 7 382 unvote storyteller 6 566 vote cookies 7 598 vote catinasuit 8 605 unvote catinasuit 7 610 unvote zeriel 6 633 unvote drainbead 5 637 unvote hal briston 4 660 unvote cookies 3 723 unvote sinjin 2 911 unvote dnooman 1 1004 unvote blastermaster 0
dnooman Post # Action Player Current Tally 100 vote fcod 1 312 vote drainbead 2 350 unvote drainbead 1 354 vote greedysmurf 2 355 unvote greedysmurf 1 355 vote hockeymonkey 2 366 vote zumachan 3 447 vote captainklutz 4 452 vote pygmyrugger 5 455 vote panamajack 6 458 vote roosh 7 485 vote catinasuit 8 519 unvote hockeymonkey 7 522 unvote fcod 6 527 unvote zumachan 5 541 unvote panamajack 4 542 unvote roosh 3 574 unvote captainklutz 2 593 vote roosh 3 598 unvote catinasuit 2 638 unvote pygmyrugger 1 643 vote idle thoughts 2 644 unvote roosh 1 653 unvote idle thoughts 0
MadTheSwine Post # Action Player Current Tally 382 vote storyteller 1 424 vote atarus 2 512 vote greedysmurf 3 522 vote fcod 4 633 vote drainbead 5 661 unvote drainbead 4 753 vote catinasuit 5 763 vote drainbead 6 769 unvote drainbead 5 788 unvote storyteller 4 823 vote hockeymonkey 5 896 unvote greedysmurf 4 909 vote roosh 5 911 vote dnooman 6 931 unvote hockeymonkey 5 940 vote drainbead 6 960 unvote catinasuit 5 969 unvote drainbead 4 984 unvote roosh 3 1006 vote pygmyrugger 4 1006 unvote pygmyrugger 3 1017 unvote atarus 2 1061 unvote dnooman 1 1077 unvote fcod 0 |
By your own definition: I was on CatInASuit's at vote #8, and was vote #5 on MadTheSwines. You got on zumachan's at vote # 13, and CatInASuit at vote #5. So what's your beef about me and bandwagons? Seems we've got an equal amount. You're on four and I'm on three. And the "bandwagons" are not equal, again. Look at my votes on dnooman and Roosh. On the former, I was one of two votes. On the latter I was one of THREE. And I never voted for MadtheSwine at all. YOU voted for all four and while on one of them you were vote number five and unvoted still when there were five, that's the LEAST amount of votes someone had when you jumped on them. It just isn't equal. All the rest you hopped on when they were eight - ten votes strong already. Yes, I would consider that hopping on a bandwagon.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Blaster Master on Oct 5, 2007 13:45:44 GMT -5
Wow, how scummy is that Pygmy Rugger!? ...Snipping the part of Roosh's post to remove the context. ... just... wah! Would you care to tell me how this: <snip> Hockeymonkey: dislike her usage of "bandwagon", think its dumb, but meh. <snip> would add any additional context? I snip almost every single quote I've ever made, at least 90%. I didn't think the rest of the post was relevant to my question. Speaking of questions, I addressed a question to Roosh, asking why he would let the scum know of his power. At least one person has quoted both of those questions to him (although I'm not sure if he's been on to see the second yet), and I haven't gotten an answer from him yet. If I see something out of wack, you're confound right I'm going to call him on it. Okay... let's take the whole paragraph together and then discuss... Hockeymonkey: dislike her usage of "bandwagon", think its dumb, but meh. Thats about it. Frankly I dislike the whole scum are all just on bandwagon ideas. I mean its certainly a good lead, but you gotta think of scum layers, so don't forget, a dude who hasn't voted for ANY scum also is suspicious as well because... well he's under teh radar. But so far that only applies to 2 people ( WTF and Capt. Klutz, heh, that rhymes!). But still, don't just put all your eggs in one basket. The first sentence makes it clear that this paragraph is about how Hockey Monkey is refering to bandwagons. He clarifies that bandwagons can be a lead, but also precisely because of that, it's possible that scum won't vote for any scum too, to vary things up. And, if we refer back to Hockey Monkey's list of bandwagoners and... OMG both WTF and Klutz do NOT show up on the list. IOW, he's refering to individuals who were NOT on bandwagons. However, without the context given by the first sentence, it certainly makes it look like he's saying something he's not. Now, I don't have a problem with cutting out irrelevant text, I do it often myself, but I almost never snip in the middle of a paragraph. Even that alone wouldn't bother me. The reason it DOES bother me, is because when I'd first read that which you quoted, I'd had a distinctly different understanding than I did when I read it as you responded to it, and when I went back to double check I realized why.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Blaster Master on Oct 5, 2007 13:52:51 GMT -5
You're on four and I'm on three. And the "bandwagons" are not equal, again. Look at my votes on dnooman and Roosh. On the former, I was one of two votes. On the latter I was one of THREE. And I never voted for MadtheSwine at all. YOU voted for all four and while on one of them you were vote number five and unvoted still when there were five, that's the LEAST amount of votes someone had when you jumped on them. It just isn't equal. All the rest you hopped on when they were eight - ten votes strong already. Yes, I would consider that hopping on a bandwagon. FTR, I don't find bandwagon analysis particularly useful, but I do feel this isn't a 100% accurate representation of the facts. Yes, when you voted for dnooman, you were only one of two votes; however, prior to that his wagon had already grown and shrank. Voting at such a point sort of allows for you to have your cake and eat it too. That is, you can turn that vote either way, depending on you may need to. Now, that's not to say you're necessarily doing that, as I'm still fairly uncertain about your alignment, and I can see that being attributed purely to perception just as easily as scumminess. However, I think that's the crux of this dispute... you two are talking past eachother.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 5, 2007 14:04:03 GMT -5
What again, you're just passing it off as "another slip". How many slips are there going to be or do we just let you off on each one because they are just slips? You seem to be twisting the quote. First of all, she had the word "apparently" in there. That says to me, it's not what she's calling it but what others are. And second, "clanger 2" was in quotes, which also says to me it's an accusation attributed by others, not herself.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Oct 5, 2007 14:08:38 GMT -5
snipped table By your own definition: I was on CatInASuit's at vote #8, and was vote #5 on MadTheSwines. You got on zumachan's at vote # 13, and CatInASuit at vote #5. So what's your beef about me and bandwagons? Seems we've got an equal amount. You're on four and I'm on three. And the "bandwagons" are not equal, again. Look at my votes on dnooman and Roosh. On the former, I was one of two votes. On the latter I was one of THREE. And I never voted for MadtheSwine at all. YOU voted for all four and while on one of them you were vote number five and unvoted still when there were five, that's the LEAST amount of votes someone had when you jumped on them. It just isn't equal. All the rest you hopped on when they were eight - ten votes strong already. Yes, I would consider that hopping on a bandwagon. I don't think you read what I wrote at all. I never said you were on Mad the Swine's. I said: (breaking it up for comprehension) This is using your definition of "When It's a Bandwagon". I didn't mention Roosh or Dnooman at all there. All the rest? That would be, hmm let's see...ONE. CatInaSuit...at vote #8. Where are you getting your information that I am hopping on at 8-10 votes strong already. And what are all the rest? Jeez. I've posted my work. Go down the list. Read it again.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 5, 2007 14:08:51 GMT -5
You're on four and I'm on three. And the "bandwagons" are not equal, again. Look at my votes on dnooman and Roosh. On the former, I was one of two votes. On the latter I was one of THREE. And I never voted for MadtheSwine at all. YOU voted for all four and while on one of them you were vote number five and unvoted still when there were five, that's the LEAST amount of votes someone had when you jumped on them. It just isn't equal. All the rest you hopped on when they were eight - ten votes strong already. Yes, I would consider that hopping on a bandwagon. FTR, I don't find bandwagon analysis particularly useful, but I do feel this isn't a 100% accurate representation of the facts. Yes, when you voted for dnooman, you were only one of two votes; however, prior to that his wagon had already grown and shrank. Voting at such a point sort of allows for you to have your cake and eat it too. That is, you can turn that vote either way, depending on you may need to. Now, that's not to say you're necessarily doing that, as I'm still fairly uncertain about your alignment, and I can see that being attributed purely to perception just as easily as scumminess. However, I think that's the crux of this dispute... you two are talking past eachother. You raise a good point, however, you have to remember, also, the motivation for voting. After it was pointed out (by Roosh, who voted right before me) that dnooman must die no matter what, I went and reread my PM and found it said what Roosh was saying. That ALL Alliance must die. Not Alliance scum, not Alliance town, all Alliance. Then came in NAF to clarify things and I unvoted. Again, context, BM, you have to go back and read what happened, as you so pointed out yourself.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 5, 2007 14:30:37 GMT -5
Until something better possibly comes along (like some votes towards some of The Claimed that I have my FOS on), vote drain bead.
"Me too" votes + being a bit trigger happy with the slip-interpretation (both with me and now Roosh) + lurking in the shadows of my particular blindspots + she is not a one-off = the bulk of my justification.
|
|
|
Post by mtgman on Oct 5, 2007 14:51:09 GMT -5
I'm here, Real Life is taking its toll. This if the first chance I've had to get online and it's just a breather. I'll have to be brief because I've got about an hour and I need to get lunch during that time.
Diomedes is slipping further and further into scumminess IMHO. Another unconfirmed/unconfirmable "reading" and continued stone throwing with numerous people on Day 2. As the saying goes, sometimes those with the most sin cast the first stones.
Having the thought in my head that Diomedes is scum has leant some interesting twists on how I read this Day's messages so far. I remember back in Day 1 when I was questioning Diomedes "investigative" powers(which had given us those lovely fuzzy screens) that drainbead asked if something he said could have been considered a breadcrumb(from before his roleclaim). This minor bit of support seems more suspicious now that I'm reading some more aggressive behavior, without good justification(grammar lynches?) from drainbead. Could her comment to me on Day 1 have been a minor show of support for a teammate? It's interesting. I've looked back through vote histories and while drainbead has voted for Diomedes he has never voted for her. Very interesting considering how touchy and OMGUSey he's been with retaliatory votes.
If I'm wrong about Diomedes then it throws a different light on drainbead as well, but I find it interesting that she's pounced on others for minor slip ups, but supported Diomedes, someone she found voteworthy at two different times on Day 1. Unfortunately her posts where she voted for him seem to be lost in the post crash, I'm not even finding them by searching her post history.
So for Today I'd be happy voting for my frontrunners. Idle Thoughts and Diomedes but I would be comfortable voting drainbead.
Enjoy, Steven
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 5, 2007 15:58:30 GMT -5
<snip> The first sentence makes it clear that this paragraph is about how Hockey Monkey is refering to bandwagons. He clarifies that bandwagons can be a lead, but also precisely because of that, it's possible that scum won't vote for any scum too, to vary things up. And, if we refer back to Hockey Monkey's list of bandwagoners and... OMG both WTF and Klutz do NOT show up on the list. IOW, he's refering to individuals who were NOT on bandwagons. However, without the context given by the first sentence, it certainly makes it look like he's saying something he's not. Now, I don't have a problem with cutting out irrelevant text, I do it often myself, but I almost never snip in the middle of a paragraph. Even that alone wouldn't bother me. The reason it DOES bother me, is because when I'd first read that which you quoted, I'd had a distinctly different understanding than I did when I read it as you responded to it, and when I went back to double check I realized why. "OMG both WTF and Klutz do NOT show up on the list" I didn't realize that, but, I'm still interpreting it differently than you are. Here's the paragraph, in its entirety: <snip> Hockeymonkey: dislike her usage of "bandwagon", think its dumb, but meh. Thats about it. Frankly I dislike the whole scum are all just on bandwagon ideas. I mean its certainly a good lead, but you gotta think of scum layers, so don't forget, a dude who hasn't voted for ANY scum also is suspicious as well because... well he's under teh radar. But so far that only applies to 2 people ( WTF and Capt. Klutz, heh, that rhymes!). But still, don't just put all your eggs in one basket. <snip> So, if WTF and Capt. Klutz aren't on Hocky's list of people who have bandwagoned, that's one thing. But, the theme of the paragraph isn't that scum or non scum are being bandwagoned, but that the argument against Hockey is that since she's been on some bandwagons, that the "layered scum" approach would mean that t here are also players who aren't on any bandwagons. But that's not what Rooshsaid. He said those players "h aven't voted for any scum". Those are two very distinctly different concepts.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 5, 2007 16:22:33 GMT -5
And, for the record, I think drainbead's attack on Roosh for using the word "they" to refer to a group of unknown size and/or gender is just... bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 5, 2007 16:35:26 GMT -5
Where were all of you when hockeymonkey was attacking me for using the generic you?
|
|
|
Post by whatthefrak on Oct 5, 2007 17:12:18 GMT -5
Hopefully I'm not falling back into lurker status, but I was starting to post a reply to the whole not joining a bandwagon thing, and then, I realized that's a dumb argument, and I don't really care to justify why I didn't vote for the 2 town that we've lynched so far. So this is what I'm posting instead since I have to leave now.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 5, 2007 17:49:22 GMT -5
"I was on CatInASuit's at vote #8, and was vote #5 on MadTheSwines. You got on zumachan's at vote # 13, and CatInASuit at vote #5." This is using your definition of "When It's a Bandwagon". I didn't mention Roosh or Dnooman at all there. All the rest? That would be, hmm let's see...ONE. CatInaSuit...at vote #8. Where are you getting your information that I am hopping on at 8-10 votes strong already. And what are all the rest? Jeez. I've posted my work. Go down the list. Read it again. Just did. You voted for zumachan and that was at the FOURTH vote. When you UNVOTED, it was on the ELEVENTH vote. Therefore, yes, I would say that you were ON THAT BANDWAGON. Eleven votes at the time? and YOU were a part of that voting crowd? YES, YOU WERE PART OF THAT BANDWAGON AT THAT TIME, I WOULD SAY.Moving on...You voted for CIAS when there were SEVEN others on him. You were the EIGHTH vote. You stuck around on him until he was up to THIRTEEN votes and finally unvoted him when there were seven again. So...YES, I would say since you were ON HIM WHEN HE HAD THIRTEEN VOTES AGAINST HIM THAT YOU WERE A PART OF THAT BANDWAGON.Moving on... dnooman. You voted him and he was at one vote then, so yours made two. You then stayed on him UNTIL HE WAS AT EIGHT VOTES and only then did you unvote. Since I would consider more than 5 or 6 to be a bandwagon, YES, I WOULD CONSIDER SINCE YOU WERE ON HIM WHEN HE WAS AT EIGHT VOTES THAT YOU WERE A PART OF THAT BANDWAGON.Moving on... MadtheSwine. Now here you voted for him when he had five. Then your fellow suspect (on MY list, at least) drainbead voted and made it six. YOU then unvoted and made it five again. So in MY opinion, no, that wasn't REALLY a bandwagon yet, but it was awfully close. And Roosh you never voted for at all at the time. Now..me: zumachan. I was the FIRST to vote and kept it there until she had at twelve votes. Bandwagon I was on? YES. Let's move on. CIAS. I voted at five and stayed on until he had 13. So was that a bandwagon I was on? YES. Let's move on. Never voted for MadtheSwineWas on dnooman when he only had ONE other vote on him and then unvoted him before anyone else voted. Was on Roosh (I was the first to vote for him) and then UNVOTED when he had THREE total. So NONE Of those were bandwagons I was a part of at the time. I was on TWO others that were bandwagons at the time, but YOU, YOU were on THREE and a half bandwagons. So what's this harebrained talk about us being equal? You CLEARLY have been A PART of more bandwagons..and that is one reason I find you suspicious. Is that so hard to believe?
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 5, 2007 18:00:16 GMT -5
Hopefully I'm not falling back into lurker status, but I was starting to post a reply to the whole not joining a bandwagon thing, and then, I realized that's a dumb argument, and I don't really care to justify why I didn't vote for the 2 town that we've lynched so far. So this is what I'm posting instead since I have to leave now. From what I know, it all started just from hockey wanting to know why the people finding her suspicious find her suspicious. I've said my reasons, among them being "all the bandwagons you were on". She then asked "what bandwagons" and is now twisting the number she's been on compared to others. WHY, I have no idea, when it's clear (at least to me) she's been on a lot of them and that it's a good reason to be suspicious of someone... ...especially if you have other reasons besides that.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Oct 5, 2007 18:43:37 GMT -5
Roosh, how do you know WTF and Capt. Klutz haven't voted for any scum? Okay. I've only read to the end of Page 4, and haven't gone on. But I'll answer this one. :and I've gotta headslap myself A TON for this. Cuz I just fucked up in what I meant to say. :shrug: that's what happens when you post in the middle of classes: I misspoke. What I did was look at Hal's voting chart. And I was wondering who DIDN'T lynch an innocent. Ie: WHO DID NOT VOTE FOR UI OR DOTCHAN. That was my premise. I shouldn't have said Scum there. I should have said TOWNIE. They COULD have voted for SCUM. They didn't vote for TOWNIES either day is what I was trying to say. Basically I was trying to point out that those who are evading suspicion are also suspicious. Since Hockey's been all about the "bandwagons" and such. You gotta think about who was't on ANY bandwagons too. Or who stayed off the FATAL ones. ~ReReading it that whole paragraph SUCKS and is quite awkwards, so I'll just try to reexplain it~ Only 2 people did NOT vote to lynch the known townies. That was klutz and WTF. Both of their votes were NOT towards killing a townie. What I was trying to say there was that we shouldn't JUST be suspicious of those only voting for innocents. Scum will be layered. So expect some to be on the bandwagons to lynch townies, but SOME will also be evading any suspicion by simply NOT voting for the townies. Only 2 people HAVE not voted for a townie either day (ie: have NO blood on their hands), and THAT is Klutz and WTF. Frankly I dislike the whole scum are all just on bandwagon ideas. I mean its certainly a good lead, but you gotta think of scum layers, so don't forget, a dude who hasn't voted for ANY scum also is suspicious as well because... well he's under teh radar. But so far that only applies to 2 people (WTF and Capt. Klutz, heh, that rhymes!). But still, don't just put all your eggs in one basket. the underlined part should read "any lynched/Townie/whatever you want to call Dotchan and Ui". I had been using scum over and over, and so I musta just typed it in again. If you wanna call it a slip. Then sure. Go ahead. And I'll die for it. But it's gonna be a wasted day. But yeah. I fucked up there, and shoulda proofread.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Oct 5, 2007 18:48:12 GMT -5
Either way, classifying my arguments as flippant and evasive because I'm using emoticons is... weak. Also, a clarification, since this wasn't clear either. It wasn't the emoticon, it was the response itself that i didn't like: Again, a COMPLETE misrepresentation of the facts. I won't even bother to address any of the points, save one, because the rest I've already addressed multiple times. The stuff AFTER the emoticon. And also you stated Now, if we assume for a moment that Roosh is in fact pro-town, then we can surmise that he is likely telling the truth (and we have some bastard mods) or, less likely, he is deliberately falsifying his powers to either avoid getting killed as vanilla (poor form) or attempting to conceal a power role assuming the scum would believe he wouldn't lie to the town.Actually, in this case, I would disagree with your #2 premise (poor form for a townie), but thats a MetaGaming discussion I would gladly have with you outside of the game. It's something Ui mentioned, and the one thing I actually do agree with him on. In an open setup, it's poor form. In a closed setup, I disagree. But that's for an out of game discussion so i won't bother with it in here.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 5, 2007 19:10:16 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Roosh, that was the explanation that I came up with...that you used "scum" accidentally instead of "town."
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 5, 2007 20:14:24 GMT -5
Boy...that benefit of the doubt sure smells good, Roosh. Can I have just an itty bitty taste? Lick the spoon, maybe?
|
|
|
Post by whatthefrak on Oct 5, 2007 20:37:52 GMT -5
That is a very good point Cookies. You and drainbead are both on the block more or less for typos. Well, Cookies, you are...drainbead, you are sorta coming off as scummy. But here's a much bigger slip from Roosh, and votes aren't flying all over the place? We're a fickle group.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 5, 2007 20:41:19 GMT -5
That wasn't exactly the point I was going for, but to each their own.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 5, 2007 20:43:40 GMT -5
What were you going for, then? I took it the same way that wtf did.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 5, 2007 20:48:29 GMT -5
I had you (drain) in mind when I made the joke, as you had just clearly stated the benefit of the doubt that you had extended him. But it certainly can apply to anyone else who is applying double standards.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Oct 5, 2007 21:14:36 GMT -5
It's one reason I haven't voted for you, yet Cookies. I feel a typo shouldn't be the Major reason for lynching. If it's 50% of a case against someone, it's not a great idea (ie: See Dotchan in Asylum). I can be suspicious, but it's not gonna lead to a vote just yet.
But going after people for typos later and later into the game... that smells of opportunism. Drainbead in my mind isn't on the block FOR a typo, at least not in my mind.
And WTF, I'm not the antsy type, so don't worry, I'm not gonna go around trying to lynch a potential Doctor, your name was there, and so i felt like i had to bring it up. Your lack of defense is ... well it's understood.
|
|