Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 3, 2008 4:35:45 GMT -5
I get votes for my lynch-a-lurker-strategy and then Town (I hope) go and decide to... lynch the lurker I'm confused Here's the deal--as far as I'm concerned, you suspicious behavior is not due to wanting to lynch lurkers, but by giving the appearance of gaming it by trying to split content and fluff and by not choosing people from your list with any reasoning apparent to the people who were complaining. Like I said earlier, I love listening to people talk about Lynch-the-Lurker and making lists, because when you make a list on anything but totally objective criteria, you have a chance of revealing any games you might be trying to play with the data. Well I didn't vote you for that. There is however a difference between lynch the lurker, and lynch the person who's not posting a lot. You can have the top post count and still kinda be lurking if there's no content in your posts. Simultaneously one can have a low post count but have posts full of content, and then not be lurking. Also personal problems are a null tell, but can create the appearance of lurking. On the other hand having only one post and having it appear to contain content, but not actually have any, is pretty much textbook lurking. That's the dilemma of "mafia": If I made a post based on objective data and didn't comment or try to make a subjective conclusion - it could be seen as scum-motivated and a way to hide in a "objectiv-data-post". If I make a subjectiv list (and I did try to make it clear that it was subjective) - at least you can all see what I think and what I'm trying to point out. But of course it will be a subjectiv post. I can't see Mmouse7799 as really being a contribution to Town at this point. So for now I'll got for the lurker and Vote Mmouse7799
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Dec 3, 2008 5:07:53 GMT -5
I'm taking too long over assessing Total Lost. I've developed what feels like a case of eyestrain. Maybe it;s the posting at 1am that's doing it. I took a sample of the players (chosen really at my whim, but I tried to get players with a reasonably wide number of content posts, according to TL. I included Mitey Mouse (of course) but also reviewed Hoopy Frood, Kat, NAF and Nanook. My assessment of the game content in these player's posts is not identical to TL's, but none of them are outrageously far off. Thus I conclude (unless something comes up that casts the posts in a new light) that D1.231 was probably honestly compiled. For now, I'm going to set TL aside and review someone else. But not until tomorrow afternoon. I don't think the question in total's case was IF her numbers were accurate, but what was the reasoning behind using some of the numbers and not others? The data wasn't used objectively. It was used very subjectively. why? That was not the question I was answering there though. The first question that popped into my mind, when I saw 1.231, was "Where did she get those numbers?" closely followed by "Are they right?" When I started reviewing, I set out to answer that question first. I haven't yet addressed the other. Maybe I'll have some time later, but I want to look at someone else before going back to Total. I will get back to her eventually. *Ties knot in neck to remind himself.*
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Dec 3, 2008 8:00:45 GMT -5
Wow. I was not expecting to hear that from DBI. Anyway, I just have to say that this is hilarious: If I were Spongebob we would not be talking about the debacle, we would be talking about the debarnacle. Rots ship's hulls and is just basically a critter for making our pirate life more difficult. So, for me, no more debacles and for sure no more debarnacles. That is unless Squidio shows up. He might be hungry, for all we know. --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Dec 3, 2008 9:00:37 GMT -5
Okay, okay, so there was more going on. I was being facetious. It's just really, really frustrating to slog through 20+ pages of stuff, at least half of which is pointless noise. Maybe I should go back to taking notes... I'm agreeing with Cookies here--it's not enough for a vote for you in my case, but yeah, this is ASKING for your usual day-one lynch, since it sounds like you don't give a damn.
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Dec 3, 2008 9:00:30 GMT -5
... DBI is...well...standing out like a nipple in February. My co-workers were wondering what I was laughing at.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 10:08:19 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 3, 2008 10:08:19 GMT -5
And somehow I still didn't manage to address my broken tag...
vote DBI[/color]
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 11:03:27 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Dec 3, 2008 11:03:27 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'm digging the DBI votes. She always gets lynched in the beginning of the game, or when she subs in. I agree with Zeriel that it sounds like she doesn't give a damn, but it seems like a scum dotchan would utilize that to her benefit, and not post things likely to get her lynched on Day 1. Sounds to me like a townie who's tired of shagging balls.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 11:46:12 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 3, 2008 11:46:12 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'm digging the DBI votes. She always gets lynched in the beginning of the game, or when she subs in. I agree with Zeriel that it sounds like she doesn't give a damn, but it seems like a scum dotchan would utilize that to her benefit, and not post things likely to get her lynched on Day 1. Sounds to me like a townie who's tired of shagging balls. This from the guy who said... I had this dialog with somebody before, but there's a difference between a lurker and a flaker. Somebody who flakes is somebody who doesn't get online for whatever reason, whether it be a legitimate one or not. Somebody who lurks is somebody who's keeping tabs on the game, but just not posting. That's why it pisses me off when pressure votes on lurkers work, it's just saying, "we've accepted your behavior up until this point; better shape up!" If she really is lurking, and not flaking, I think we should vote her out, post haste. That behavioral is not acceptable. I mean, I understand the point you're trying to make with DBI from a meta standpoint, but intentional lurking is anti-town. Yes anti-town does not mean scum, but it does hurt town. Someone being anti-town by accident is generally a bad reason to vote. Someone being intentionally anti-town isn't a bad reason to vote.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 11:47:16 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 3, 2008 11:47:16 GMT -5
NETA: After all, it's been said that until town starts holding people to task for intentionally anti-town behavior, that behavior will continue.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 11:59:19 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 3, 2008 11:59:19 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'm digging the DBI votes. She always gets lynched in the beginning of the game, or when she subs in. I agree with Zeriel that it sounds like she doesn't give a damn, but it seems like a scum dotchan would utilize that to her benefit, and not post things likely to get her lynched on Day 1. Sounds to me like a townie who's tired of shagging balls. This from the guy who said... I had this dialog with somebody before, but there's a difference between a lurker and a flaker. Somebody who flakes is somebody who doesn't get online for whatever reason, whether it be a legitimate one or not. Somebody who lurks is somebody who's keeping tabs on the game, but just not posting. That's why it pisses me off when pressure votes on lurkers work, it's just saying, "we've accepted your behavior up until this point; better shape up!" If she really is lurking, and not flaking, I think we should vote her out, post haste. That behavioral is not acceptable. I mean, I understand the point you're trying to make with DBI from a meta standpoint, but intentional lurking is anti-town. Yes anti-town does not mean scum, but it does hurt town. Someone being anti-town by accident is generally a bad reason to vote. Someone being intentionally anti-town isn't a bad reason to vote. Rugger, can you respond to the above?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 12:18:02 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 3, 2008 12:18:02 GMT -5
mmouse - 5 votes (KidV, Kat, misterblockey, Hoopy Frood, Total Lost) DBI - 4 votes (Flyingblankofdoom, Chucara, sinjin, Cookies) Chucara - 2 votes (Santo Rugger, miteymouse) Mr Special Ed - 2 votes (zeriel, Cookies) Total Lost - 1 vote (Peekercpa) Peekercpa - 1 vote (DBI) bufftabby - 1 vote (storyteller) Pedescribe - 1 vote (Nanook) Nanook - 1 vote (Pedescribe) storyteller - 1 vote (bufftabby)
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 12:22:56 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Dec 3, 2008 12:22:56 GMT -5
This from the guy who said... I can see how you might see those two sentiments as conflicting. I made two points that pertain to DBI. The first being that I don't like it when pressure votes for lurkers work. DBI posted a handful of times, and only popped back in when she had a few votes on her. So, in that respect, the pressure votes worked. However, her attitude when she posted was so carefree that it seemed to me like she's tired of shagging balls. Part of me is pissed off, but part of me feels like she's just not excited. I would think a scum dotchan would be excited.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 12:30:35 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Dec 3, 2008 12:30:35 GMT -5
Newbie question: What's a dotchan?
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 12:33:52 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Dec 3, 2008 12:33:52 GMT -5
Another name for Death By Irony.
It's what she used to call herself around here, before we lynched her three times in one game. (I think it was three.) See Firefly for full details. It's probably still her account name.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 12:34:31 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 3, 2008 12:34:31 GMT -5
Newbie question: What's a dotchan? Dotchan is DeathByIrony and DeathByIrony is Dotchan. Same person different names depending on what board you are on and when you met her.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 12:38:27 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Dec 3, 2008 12:38:27 GMT -5
Newbie question: What's a dotchan? Dotchan is DeathByIrony and DeathByIrony is Dotchan. Same person different names depending on what board you are on and when you met her. Ahh.. I thought it was a mafia term. I'll just go reread the last few post and they'll probably make more sense now
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 12:49:48 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 3, 2008 12:49:48 GMT -5
OK, I have a request:
We are currently roughly 24 hours away from carrying off a lynch of a player, mmouse, who has posted exactly once toDay. The post was relatively nonsubstantive. There is a nonzero chance that mmouse will be subbed or mod-killed after the Day ends. In a Day of more than 700 posts, a Day that has spanned nearly two real-life weeks, a Day in which arguments large and small have pinballed all over the place, fully five players have their vote on a player who has contributed less than one fifth of one percent of the total content of the Day, a player whose alignment will tell us nothing, a player whose "lurking" is clearly a result of being absent from the game, not a conscious choice as DBI has admitted that her own absence has at least partly been.
Of the five voters for mmouse - KidV, Kat, misterblockey, Hoopy Frood, Total Lost - I ask the same three questions:
1. Do you feel that of all the available options, we should lynch mmouse, if so, why?
2. If you truly believe lurking to be a crime worthy of lynching, why mmouse, whose absence could be the result of any number of things other than deliberate lurking, instead of DBI, who has freely admitted to lurking in the classic sense?
3. Do you have any other leads at all?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 12:59:59 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 3, 2008 12:59:59 GMT -5
mmouse - 5 votes (KidV, Kat, misterblockey, Hoopy Frood, Total Lost) DBI - 4 votes (Flyingblankofdoom, Chucara, sinjin, Cookies) Chucara - 2 votes (Santo Rugger, miteymouse) Mr Special Ed - 2 votes (zeriel, Cookies) Total Lost - 1 vote (Peekercpa) Peekercpa - 1 vote (DBI) bufftabby - 1 vote (storyteller) Pedescribe - 1 vote (Nanook) Nanook - 1 vote (Pedescribe) storyteller - 1 vote (bufftabby) You're counting me for 2 votes...
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 13:10:12 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Dec 3, 2008 13:10:12 GMT -5
1. Do you feel that of all the available options, we should lynch mmouse, if so, why? 2. If you truly believe lurking to be a crime worthy of lynching, why mmouse, whose absence could be the result of any number of things other than deliberate lurking, instead of DBI, who has freely admitted to lurking in the classic sense? 3. Do you have any other leads at all? I'm not seeing a huge difference between DBI and mmouse9799 at this point, to be honest. If anything, DBI has at least done us the favor of letting us know she's slacking off. Mmouse9799 hasn't even done that, even though she's been on this board and the Dope multiple times since I originally called her out. I don't have much else to go on, I never do on Day One. There's been much discussion, and I think several conversations have good potential for bearing fruit down the road, but I haven't seen anything more voteworthy than the blatant anti-town behavior by DBI and mmouse9799. They could both be staring modkill straight in the face, thats true. I rather suspect that Idle won't confirm that, and won't be telling us how he intends to handle alignment reveal if he does choose to modkill. If he does, and the info gain is equal to what we'd get if we lynched, I'll be happy to move my vote.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 13:15:17 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 3, 2008 13:15:17 GMT -5
OK, I have a request: We are currently roughly 24 hours away from carrying off a lynch of a player, mmouse, who has posted exactly once toDay. The post was relatively nonsubstantive. There is a nonzero chance that mmouse will be subbed or mod-killed after the Day ends. Once again I would like to ask Idle if he plans to do anything to lurkers as well as how he plans to handle modkills if there are any.And I am asking it really fucking big so he doesn't miss it. Sorry if you answered this and I missed it Idle. Ok, moving on from that. I am 90% sure, based on her activity in the other game's spoiler board as well as her logon activity on this board, that she is actively lurking. Dot has actually come out and admited to lurking. I don't think I know what to do with this information. Prior to Dot's reveal I was all set and ready to vote for Tabby, I was only holding off in order to make sure that I wasn't missing anything else that was blinding and to wait to hear from Idle re: my question above. For my money, I still think Tabby is the scummiest player toDay. But DAMN, Dot and MMouse are behaving in a shockingly (dot more so in the shock department than mmouse) anti-town fashion. And while it may not be pro-scum... My theory as to what to do with anti town play in the early game doesn't really hold water when one of those people more or less says "yeah, I am acting anti-town, what of it?" I am conflicted, and may still vote tabby. In fact, just for the record. vote tabbyTo record that I think tabby is the scummiest player of the Day so far based on current vote history and post history as I have pointed out in posts past.I reserve the right to change this vote to one of the lurkers though, once I wrap my head around dotchan and we hear back from Idle about mmouse.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 13:33:27 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 3, 2008 13:33:27 GMT -5
Of the five voters for mmouse - KidV, Kat, misterblockey, Hoopy Frood, Total Lost - I ask the same three questions: 1. Do you feel that of all the available options, we should lynch mmouse, if so, why? No - not really right now. I went bakc and read again and I saw something I didn't think of the first time. We got two players "not playing" right now. Non of them said why or gave an explanation as to way. But of the two not really being in the game - only one placed a vote and just went away yet again. I'll have to look at DBI a bit more before being sure that MM7799 is the best choice. 2. If you truly believe lurking to be a crime worthy of lynching, why mmouse, whose absence could be the result of any number of things other than deliberate lurking, instead of DBI, who has freely admitted to lurking in the classic sense? 3. Do you have any other leads at all? I'll get back to you on that
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 13:55:07 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 3, 2008 13:55:07 GMT -5
OK, I have a request: We are currently roughly 24 hours away from carrying off a lynch of a player, mmouse, who has posted exactly once toDay. The post was relatively nonsubstantive. There is a nonzero chance that mmouse will be subbed or mod-killed after the Day ends. In a Day of more than 700 posts, a Day that has spanned nearly two real-life weeks, a Day in which arguments large and small have pinballed all over the place, fully five players have their vote on a player who has contributed less than one fifth of one percent of the total content of the Day, a player whose alignment will tell us nothing, a player whose "lurking" is clearly a result of being absent from the game, not a conscious choice as DBI has admitted that her own absence has at least partly been. Of the five voters for mmouse - KidV, Kat, misterblockey, Hoopy Frood, Total Lost - I ask the same three questions: 1. Do you feel that of all the available options, we should lynch mmouse, if so, why? 2. If you truly believe lurking to be a crime worthy of lynching, why mmouse, whose absence could be the result of any number of things other than deliberate lurking, instead of DBI, who has freely admitted to lurking in the classic sense? I actually find mmouse and DBI equally valid choices due to both of them actively lurking. As far as the other events of the Day, I'm not getting a scum read really from any of them. I do think on the whole toDay has been a good day for establishing a lot of baselines on various posters. The bufftabby thing is interesting, but I don't feel the case against her overcomes my feelings towards our lurkers at this point. Now the reason I'm voting for mmouse over DBI is I want to actually see what comes out of DBI's "yeah, I'm lurking, and intentionally doing so" thing. With not much time left in the Day, it might be something that will continue to be played out toMorrow. It might also turn out to be a dead end. It might also be tied to the "mysterious fourth option" that Idle referenced (of course, so could mmouse). Like I said, beyond bufftabby, which I don't see as being all that srong at this point, not really.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 14:22:19 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Dec 3, 2008 14:22:19 GMT -5
OK, I have a request: We are currently roughly 24 hours away from carrying off a lynch of a player, mmouse, who has posted exactly once toDay. The post was relatively nonsubstantive. There is a nonzero chance that mmouse will be subbed or mod-killed after the Day ends. In a Day of more than 700 posts, a Day that has spanned nearly two real-life weeks, a Day in which arguments large and small have pinballed all over the place, fully five players have their vote on a player who has contributed less than one fifth of one percent of the total content of the Day, a player whose alignment will tell us nothing, a player whose "lurking" is clearly a result of being absent from the game, not a conscious choice as DBI has admitted that her own absence has at least partly been. Of the five voters for mmouse - KidV, Kat, misterblockey, Hoopy Frood, Total Lost - I ask the same three questions: 1. Do you feel that of all the available options, we should lynch mmouse, if so, why? 2. If you truly believe lurking to be a crime worthy of lynching, why mmouse, whose absence could be the result of any number of things other than deliberate lurking, instead of DBI, who has freely admitted to lurking in the classic sense? 3. Do you have any other leads at all? Answering because I'm complicit in the mmouse lynch, even if I'm not one of the voters. 1. I don't think it's the best choice, but I also don't think it's a bad one. 2. I am completly unaware of how Idle Thoughts is going to handle modkills/substitutions. However, until we find out, DBI probably won't get modkilled, and I expect her to post more tomorrow, or I'll be right on her about it. mmouse will most likely be modkilled or subbed. If she's modkilled, and we learn no info, this would be bad. If,if she's modkilled, we do get information, I would suggest lynching Nanook. If she would be subbed, again, Nanook. 3. I am highly suspicious of Nanook for deliberately misunderstanding something he understood properly before in an attempt to get me lynched.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 14:29:25 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Dec 3, 2008 14:29:25 GMT -5
Some thoughts on Storyteller:
1.275 Quotes santo's use of debacle, but doesn't seem to have any qualms about its use at that time.
Why is it only a problem when I say it a second time? Why wasn't it a problem when Santo said it? If it's such an issue, and so fascinating, it seems your interest shouldve been piqued the first couple of times it was used.
1.351
This sounds like a misrepresentation of total by story. One can observe that scum might be trying to get FCoD to claim fully without specific evidence that someone has said, "you! FCoD! Claim 100%!"
1.584
I've referenced it twice at this point, using the same contentious word each time (is this offcially The Debacle Debacle?), and rugger's used it once. Please define this "continual reference" you speak of. Like I said, you're blowing things out of proportion.
1.629
Since when do we let quibbles, debacles, kerfluffles, or cacophonies die a good and decent death in this game? If I can't even talk about a disagreement from Day One *while still in Day One*, I suppose I sure can't bring it up Day Two or Three either. Shall we just start each Day fresh then? Each day? Please, tell me what the statute of limitations is on these things.
You mention using this as a scum tactic. Scum try to pretend to be Town. Sorry if my Town behavior overlaps with your scum behavior, but that's just the way it works sometimes, and you know that.
I think you're looking for an easy lynch target, and you decided I was the winner. I don't think your case against me has any merit whatsoever. My vote stays firmly on storyteller.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 14:37:09 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 3, 2008 14:37:09 GMT -5
OK, I have a request: We are currently roughly 24 hours away from carrying off a lynch of a player, mmouse, who has posted exactly once toDay. The post was relatively nonsubstantive. There is a nonzero chance that mmouse will be subbed or mod-killed after the Day ends. Once again I would like to ask Idle if he plans to do anything to lurkers as well as how he plans to handle modkills if there are any.And I am asking it really fucking big so he doesn't miss it. Sorry if you answered this and I missed it Idle. It's okay, I forgive you. : ) So for you, I'll answer again: I have poked all of the people who have not been posting that much. I did this YESTERDAY. TOMORROW is when Day ends...so if these three people have not posted that much by the time Day Two Dawns, they will be subbed out. IF I have subs, that is. So far, I don't. So they might just have to stay in.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 14:38:25 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 3, 2008 14:38:25 GMT -5
mmouse - 5 votes (KidV, Kat, misterblockey, Hoopy Frood, Total Lost) DBI - 4 votes (Flyingblankofdoom, Chucara, sinjin, Cookies) Chucara - 2 votes (Santo Rugger, miteymouse) bufftabby - 2 votes (storyteller, NAF) Mr Special Ed - 1 vote (zeriel) Total Lost - 1 vote (Peekercpa) Peekercpa - 1 vote (DBI) Pedescribe - 1 vote (Nanook) Nanook - 1 vote (Pedescribe) storyteller - 1 vote (bufftabby)
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 14:54:32 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Dec 3, 2008 14:54:32 GMT -5
Once again I would like to ask Idle if he plans to do anything to lurkers as well as how he plans to handle modkills if there are any.And I am asking it really fucking big so he doesn't miss it. Sorry if you answered this and I missed it Idle. It's okay, I forgive you. : ) So for you, I'll answer again: I have poked all of the people who have not been posting that much. I did this YESTERDAY. TOMORROW is when Day ends...so if these three people have not posted that much by the time Day Two Dawns, they will be subbed out. IF I have subs, that is. So far, I don't. So they might just have to stay in. Ah. In that case, I am once again perfectly fine with a mmouse lynch.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 15:03:44 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 3, 2008 15:03:44 GMT -5
Some thoughts on Storyteller: Oh, I'm so glad you responded. Y'all, please, please read bufftabby's post here, and consider what you've seen and read and what she's said in the past. This is a better lead than a player with one post. First, a general observation about this response from tabby. I first voted for her, and posted reasons why - my "case," as it were, at #629. To sum up: I found her mischaracterization of my observations regarding her word choice, coupled with a vote for me on the basis of that mischaracterization, to be scummy. I explained this better in #629, and refer readers to that post for the full outline. At #668, bufftabby promises to "respond to" my post when she has time, which I adjudge fair enough. I have waited this response. She clearly had time to create a response; the post to which I am presently responding is evidence enough of that (it takes time to cherry pick and then twist evidence!). Her response is quoted, in its entirety, below. My simple observation: she has not actually responded, at all, to the substance of my argument: that in claiming I made a "mountain out of a molehill" by observing an interesting semantic connection, she was mischaracterizing my posting. She has instead looked up other things to which she can respond. She has not even attempted to refute my actual argument. That's silly. The interest is not in the word itself, per se. Your repetition of it, many pages later, was the entire point. This is so transparently bad that I'll just let it stand on its own. Anyone think it was a misrepresentation, versus a discussion? totallost, whatcha think? This is desperate reaching, and I'm confident others will see that, too. Interesting. The post to which you refer is at #584. I invite our readers to visit #584 and examine my writing there. When I describe "continual references," I am not mentioning bufftabby nor indeed any player at all. It was and is my impression that, overall, the events in question were referred to more frequently and in stronger terms than they warranted. This was a generalization, built on the specific observation earlier in the post (that did refer specifically to bufftabby. Her paraphrase of my post above - trying to imply that I said that she, personally, was responsible for the "continual reference" - is completely false. Again, this is neither what I said nor even a reasonable person's paraphrase of what I said. Some quibbles are worth describing as full-fledged Events; this one was not, and has been inflated beyond its merits. I sensed manipulation in that. <snerk> This above is what clinched it for me, buff. This is such a generic accusation, and it is almost comically inappropriate in this case. "An easy lynch target?" Yes, that's it. I was looking for an " easy lynch target," and the obvious choice for an easy lynch is someone with no existing votes and no previous suspicion pointing her way. As the current state of voting affairs demonstrates, you are not an easy lynch target, and others most certainly are; if, as you suggest, someone on whom I could easily generate a bandwagon was my primary goal, there are half a dozen easier targets. Maybe if you'd actually discussed my case against you, rather than grasping frantically at unrelated straws, you'd see things differently. Thought I suspect not, because after all, you're Scum. Well, knock me over with a feather! ------------------------------- Here's my best guess at what happened here. I noticed that bufftabby used a word that Rugger had previously used, which had struck me as out of place when it happened. The repetition of the word seemed especially interesting, suggesting to me that the events it was being used to describe were being viewed in a disproportionate way. So I remarked on the word choice, and more generally on the fact that mentions of this event as an Event, capital "E," seemed worthy of investigation. I announced that I would begin my investigation with bufftabby. This is pretty weak tea, to this point. But I think that bufftabby, because she is guilty, interpreted this as an all-out attack. She immediately went on the defensive, accusing me of blowing things out of proportion (again, based on one mildly-worded post) and voting for me on that basis. I challenged her on that, and she couldn't really respond to it: she re-read and realized that I hadn't made a mountain out of a molehill so much as, you know, discussed a molehill. But she couldn't admit that and back down, because to do that would be tantamount to admitting she was Scum and panicked. So instead she ran a quickie post history on me, looking for a line or two that she could remove from context, misrepresent, and use to justify her existing vote on me. ------------------------------- I urge everyone who is voting for a lurker to consider the above. Look at the empty arguments buff is using, at the massive misrepresentations she's pushing as offense and as defense. If this isn't Scummy, what is?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 15:09:43 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 3, 2008 15:09:43 GMT -5
Ah. In that case, I am once again perfectly fine with a mmouse lynch. WHHHHAAAAAAATTT? Why? How does this make sense? If mmouse is not going to be mod-killed at all, but rather will be substituted if she does not rejoin the game, then voting her out with one post is the worst thing we could do. It gains us nothing. It tells us nothing. ToMorrow either she'll be here to explain herself, or her sub will be. If there is some out-of-game reason that she is not participating, then she could easily be a power role and not get to claim before the deadline. Her death would then be really stupid. If she's lurking strategically... well, I just don't understand why she'd be doing that, as Town or as Scum. She sees she's the vote leader, she sees that the second candidate is a lurker. Why wouldn't she pop in to save herself, whatever her alignment? Or: 1. She's trying to get lynched, because she's a Bomb or Jester. Or: 2. She is unable to post, by some post restriction mechanism. Anything is possible, we know nothing, and the one danger associated with not lynching her - that she'd be modkilled and we'd get no information on her alignment - has been obviated. How in the world does this make for a good lynch? AUGH!
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 15:11:12 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 3, 2008 15:11:12 GMT -5
And after the last several posts I think I am going to stick to my Tabby vote.
Killing lurkers when we may get a sub, even if they admit to lurking...I may still be able to get behind a DBI lynch. I am really not sure what to do about that bit still, but I can not support the lynch of mmouse. Not with the prospect of a sub on the horizon.
|
|