Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Urist Imiknorris]

ed boy, I'd also like to know why you unvoted Powder Miner after he vanished. Wasn't the entire purpose behind your vote to get him to start scumhunting? Why would you drop it when he wasn't even posting, much less hunting?

[Powder Miner]

Outright ignore? Now why are you making things up Mormota? I didn't even know Urist was the replacement- I miss things pretty easily.
And the "lurking" people have been calling me out for is life, and you need to deal with it, why precisely would you ignore that? Also, what the heck is calling someone out on saying the word "whoopa?" That's completely ridiculous. And if you want me to drop the question on Irony and ask someone else one, so be it, unvote Irony (I think) Mormota, What's up with ignoring several of my posts in addition to voting shakerag for saying the word "whoops"?

[Urist Imiknorris]

I think the "ignore" part came about because of your response to me telling you I was Mindmaker's replacement. You do seem to be getting somewhat defensive though.

[Shakerag]

Jim:  As much as it absolutely pains me to say, based on your responses to my questions I don't have anything I can confidently press further at this time.  However I still feel that you're waving your IC-shield (encircled with bands of ego, and menacing with spikes of condescending) around to deflect attacks, so I'm far from convinced that you're a townie. 

Also, Shakerag, I don't see any problem with the D1 votecount. It as pretty even from RVing, but three people had been voting for mipe9 because they found him suspicious, -after multiple extensions-, and with cases. They just turned out to be wrong.

Interesting choice of words at the end there, Powder Miner.  Sounds like you think that none of the people voting for mipe9 could have been scum trying for a mislynch.  Maybe you know something the rest of us don't? 

There's been a fair bit of attention thrown ed boy's way lately too.  I think I may look into that more tonight.

[Jim Groovester]

Jim:  As much as it absolutely pains me to say, based on your responses to my questions I don't have anything I can confidently press further at this time.  However I still feel that you're waving your IC-shield (encircled with bands of ego, and menacing with spikes of condescending) around to deflect attacks, so I'm far from convinced that you're a townie.

I asked you for your case and then you tell me you don't have one. Why are you voting me again? I get that you don't like me (the feeling's mutual), but if the driving force behind your vote is that you don't like me (because it paaaaaaaaaiiins you that you don't have any reason to vote for me), then you have a problem.

If you suspect somebody but you have no evidence, then you shouldn't really be suspecting that person. You should not get in the habit of holding your vote reasonlessly or voting solely on gut feelings, as you will convince nobody with your arguments (because you don't have any), you will be wrong (because you don't have any evidence to support your conclusion), and it will backfire (because you're not voting for a good reason).

I swing my giant mafia cajones around every game. Just ask anybody's who's played with me. This is par for the course, numpnuts.

Also, Shakerag, I don't see any problem with the D1 votecount. It as pretty even from RVing, but three people had been voting for mipe9 because they found him suspicious, -after multiple extensions-, and with cases. They just turned out to be wrong.

Interesting choice of words at the end there, Powder Miner.  Sounds like you think that none of the people voting for mipe9 could have been scum trying for a mislynch.  Maybe you know something the rest of us don't? 

Nope, he's just a good listener. He probably picked that opinion up from me in a previous Beginner's Mafia, and with good reason.

You seem convinced that somebody on mipe9's lynch had to be scum. You have already been advised on why this is a terrible idea. I suggest you listen.

Additionally, you've talked about how you found Orangebottle suspicious. What were your reasons?

Outright ignore? Now why are you making things up Mormota? I didn't even know Urist was the replacement- I miss things pretty easily.
And the "lurking" people have been calling me out for is life, and you need to deal with it, why precisely would you ignore that? Also, what the heck is calling someone out on saying the word "whoopa?" That's completely ridiculous. And if you want me to drop the question on Irony and ask someone else one, so be it, unvote Irony (I think) Mormota, What's up with ignoring several of my posts in addition to voting shakerag for saying the word "whoops"?

I'd like to know who your top suspect is, along with a case to go along with it. Make it a good one, because after a while I start feeling terrible about yelling at you all the time.

Impress me, Powder Miner.

You do seem to be getting somewhat defensive though.

This isn't necessarily a scum tell in all cases. The question to ask is, "Is it appropriate for this player to get defensive in this situation?"

[ed boy]

Oh, goody, lynching the IC.

I don't like how you're throwing the IC card around. One one hand, you're saying that you should not be placed above suspicion because you're an IC. However, there are posts like this where you make out as if you should get special treatment for it. Your arguments don't consist of 'I'm town, you shouldn't lych me', they consist of 'I'm an IC, you shouldn't lynch me'.

With the game so close to the end of the day, a vote at this stage is pretty serious, and you seem to be throwing yours around rather lightly.

This is a very good point, ed boy.

Also, why are you so quick to condemn powder miner? None of your recent posts have been hammering away at him, and you haven't shown any attention to him at all recently, which makes your sudden change of heart very suspicious. Given how close we are to the day's end, I can't believe that this is a simple pressure vote. You seem very keen for powder miner to hang for a mild case of inactivity, and I don't like that at all, Jim Groovester.

You seem to have done the same thing in the same post, except with even less than I had. Ed boy, your words don't match your actions. Explain yourself. I also find it interesting to note that if it weren't for the extension, you would have cast the final vote on both lynch-ees. I'm also having difficulty accepting your explanations for my previous line of inquiry. Don't be surprised if I go back to that.

I wasn't voting Jim out of the blue. I already had my suspicions, I had spend several posts questioning him, and I had already FOS'd him. Jim's vote on powder miner had neither of the last two, and I suspect didn't have the first either. As for the final vote, that's because of timezones. Because of my timezone, I am online and on B12 shortly before the day deadline, which means that my activity comes right before day's end, and thus I tend to be among the last to vote.

ed boy, I'll have your case too. I have a feeling it's less artificial and less contrived because you're not going about it like you know everything there is to know about playing the game already. Still, I would know what it is and why my answers are apparently unsatisfactory.

It feels to me like you're using your IC position to undermine lines of suspicion and questioning against you. When people do get answers out of you, they are often brief and can be inconsistent. You don't seem to be adding anything with your posts.

Whenever someone asks you a question, you spend as much time griping about being asked the question as you do answering it. You seem to consider being questioned and suspected a terrible thing, and you're determined to make things and difficult as possible for the questioner. I can't see a town player wanting to be so difficult to read, but I can see a scum player wanting that.

ed boy, I'd also like to know why you unvoted Powder Miner after he vanished. Wasn't the entire purpose behind your vote to get him to start scumhunting? Why would you drop it when he wasn't even posting, much less hunting?

That vote was a pressure vote. With the day nearing it's end, I take votes a lot more seriously and a vote to pressure someone into doing something becomes very inappropriate. Powder miner's lack of activity then was a coincidence. I took the pressure vote off him about 24 hours before day's end in case something unforseen came up and I would not be able to get online between then and day's end.

Irony owl, you're the other IC. Do you think that Jim has been using his IC status as an excuse too much, or not? Also, it's been two days since you last posted, why the lack of activity?

[IronyOwl]

Powder Miner:

Powder Miner:

IronyOwl, I never had any problem with your responses to Mormota. Not sure what you meant by that question.
And sure, the thread might need IC direction, but can't you direct and scumhunt at the same time?

Well, my response to Mormota didn't cover your question, evidently. Why not?

I could, but I don't think it'd be very productive.

And I'm still calling you a liar, so you might want to address that.

There's at least two things you should be responding to in this post, but you're not. Why not?

This seems to be becoming a habit.



Mormota:

I was just pointing out that newbie hotshits may want to lynch you even if they don't find you scummy, because they might not like being called newbie hotshits

Then that's something they desperately need to work on. Trying to lynch people for no reason other than that they piss you off is a pretty surefire way to get into a tunneling match with another townie, likely resulting in at least one of you getting lynched for no goddamned reason.



Shakerag:

Jim:  As much as it absolutely pains me to say, based on your responses to my questions I don't have anything I can confidently press further at this time.  However I still feel that you're waving your IC-shield (encircled with bands of ego, and menacing with spikes of condescending) around to deflect attacks, so I'm far from convinced that you're a townie. 

I haven't really seen this. Examples?



ed boy:

Irony owl, you're the other IC. Do you think that Jim has been using his IC status as an excuse too much, or not? Also, it's been two days since you last posted, why the lack of activity?

As far as I've seen, all of his IC excuses have followed the same format:

Noob: Jim you're scum for these reasons.
Jim: That's retarded and you should stop.
Noob: Well I still really think these are good reasons.
Jim: Well the goddamned IC is telling you they're not. Maybe you should listen to the person who's job it is to teach you the fucking game.

In this case, the question is whether or not his advice is valid; if so, he's not using his IC status as an excuse for anything. If not, then obviously he is. As I've yet to see any bad advice (or focus on using said tactics only for defending himself), I'd say he's just being a blunt IC.

My inactivity has been due to being busy and assuming Powder Miner's more recent contributions were "I'll do stuff later because I'm busy now" posts.

[Powder Miner]

Outright ignore? Now why are you making things up Mormota? I didn't even know Urist was the replacement- I miss things pretty easily.
And the "lurking" people have been calling me out for is life, and you need to deal with it, why precisely would you ignore that? Also, what the heck is calling someone out on saying the word "whoopa?" That's completely ridiculous. And if you want me to drop the question on Irony and ask someone else one, so be it, unvote Irony (I think) Mormota, What's up with ignoring several of my posts in addition to voting shakerag for saying the word "whoops"?

I'd like to know who your top suspect is, along with a case to go along with it. Make it a good one, because after a while I start feeling terrible about yelling at you all the time.

Impress me, Powder Miner.

My main suspicion is IronyOwl (I'm tired of backing off of, not only because he's lurking (although lurking without explanation does piss me off pretty badly and is in fact a scumtell), but because when he does post, he's not scumhunting much at all. He teaches as an IC, but he fails to scumhunt/
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=93126.msg2641414#msg2641414 
Like this post. He does a lot of IC instructing to players, but he manages to fail to do anything close to scumhunting except for remind me that he was asking we a question earlier. HE asks no new questions, he even doesn't address my answers to his other questions, nor add any other questions.





(Here's my answer to your question, IronyOwl: I was unable to find suspiciousness in the first half of D1, so from their lurking became my prime concern.)

Ninja'd by the devil himself.
YOu'll find that I just ansered your question, Irony.

[Urist Imiknorris]

when he does post, he's not scumhunting much at all. He teaches as an IC, but he fails to scumhunt/
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=93126.msg2641414#msg2641414 
Like this post. He does a lot of IC instructing to players, but he manages to fail to do anything close to scumhunting except for remind me that he was asking we a question earlier. HE asks no new questions, he even doesn't address my answers to his other questions, nor add any other questions.

(emphasis mine)

I asked him about this. Read his response to me. Go on, it's in the post you linked to. Both ICs have explained their current lack of scumhunting, and have given us newbies a way to get them to start - improve our games to the point where they can tell the scum from the newbs. After that, if they aren't hunting, it's their own damn fault.

Unvote. Powder Miner, you aren't hunting scum, you aren't actively participating, and now you've "graduated" to using an already-answered (multiple times) question as half of your argument, and using "lurkers = scum" as the other half.

Your argument against Mormota in the last BM was much better than that (at least it was until it devolved into a giant slapfight). Then you suffered the same problem of ignoring what was right in front of you in favor of continuing your attack, while at the same time collecting no new information. That is why you got lynched last game, and if you don't at least try to build up an argument, it'll be why you get lynched this time.

Dariush: Extend.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Okay, maybe your argument wasn't that much better in BMXXVI, but it was at least something that you could base your suspicions on, pressure him with until you got answers, and then use to determine whether he was town or scum. Your biggest flaw there was repeating the same question over and over and fucking over.

That's passive. Always, always, always, ALWAYS be scumhunting. It's scummy to be passive! And you cover up not pushing with the excuse that "Oh, it might not get him to slip, and you know, well, I'm not going to do anything because you know, I don't have much to base anything on." It's Day 2, you should have stuff to base it off of if you read the thread, and if you don't it's still OK to RV at Day 2, don't just sit there and be passive! Ask questions! Scumhunt!

[Urist Imiknorris]

Also, please pardon my <language that nobody here speaks>.

ICs: Metagaming like I just did kinda makes me feel dirty. Is there a way to fix that?

[Jim Groovester]

Powder Miner, if you're tired of backing off, why did you do it in the first place?

Your case isn't very deep. Is his lack of scumhunting the only reason you're after him?

IronyOwl, you still haven't cast a vote yet.

Oh, goody, lynching the IC.

I don't like how you're throwing the IC card around. One one hand, you're saying that you should not be placed above suspicion because you're an IC. However, there are posts like this where you make out as if you should get special treatment for it. Your arguments don't consist of 'I'm town, you shouldn't lych me', they consist of 'I'm an IC, you shouldn't lynch me'.

If I thought your arguments were good I wouldn't be complaining about them.

For example, did I give you shit when you said I wasn't scumhunting? No, because I could quite clearly see how you could think that, and to a certain extent, it was true.

Did I give you shit when you started asking me why I was pleased with Mindmaker? Yes, because that's an argument that will get you absolutely nowhere and has no relevance to whether I am town or scum.

I am a very powerful player in the game, and if you think I'm just going to flop over and let you lynch me just to be a nice guy, well, I don't know why you thought that, because that would be ridiculous. If you want to see me lynched, you're going to have to work harder. A lot harder than you are right now, because I will fight you every inch of the way, and I will not tone down any hostility and I will destroy all of your arguments as you struggle to present them. I will not hold back.

I hope you (and everybody else) will take a lesson away from this: Don't ever give up. Giving up is generally regarded as a scum tell (to be more accurate, it was generally regarded as a scum tell), but it's still always a good idea to fight and challenge as much as possible on the way down. If this makes your life difficult, sorry, but maybe one day you'll get to be in the same situation and come to appreciate my position here. If you do it well enough, you might even reverse opinions.

ed boy, I'll have your case too. I have a feeling it's less artificial and less contrived because you're not going about it like you know everything there is to know about playing the game already. Still, I would know what it is and why my answers are apparently unsatisfactory.

It feels to me like you're using your IC position to undermine lines of suspicion and questioning against you. When people do get answers out of you, they are often brief and can be inconsistent. You don't seem to be adding anything with your posts.

Whenever someone asks you a question, you spend as much time griping about being asked the question as you do answering it. You seem to consider being questioned and suspected a terrible thing, and you're determined to make things and difficult as possible for the questioner. I can't see a town player wanting to be so difficult to read, but I can see a scum player wanting that.

You should be taking notes.

If you ask me questions I think are unreasonable, I will make your life difficult.

I will point out, however, that I did spend a lot of time answering all of your questions and explaining why I thought you shouldn't be asking them. However, once you got your answer, you didn't stop asking the same question over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I answered the question to the best of my ability. Just because it wasn't the answer you wanted doesn't mean I'm going to change my answer if you ask again.

I've been making myself available to be read: I answered all your questions. Maybe if you're not getting any good reads, the fault lies with the questions? Or maybe you? At some point, if you're not getting anywhere, you're going to have to give up a line of questioning instead of accusing the person who's answering them of being scum.

ICs: Metagaming like I just did kinda makes me feel dirty. Is there a way to fix that?

Don't use meta tells?

If you want to use a meta argument, you need to know that player's meta very, very well. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up, which is about as effective a scumhunting tactic as you might expect. Even if you do a know a players' meta very well, you still have to make the judgment of whether what you're accusing that player of is something he does as scum, or something he always does as town or scum, which is a difficult judgment players often get wrong due to foggy and selective memory (which is what most people use as the basis for what they consider a player's meta to be).

Meta arguments used to be more in style but they've fallen out of favor recently. I know I've actively discouraged their use in games, because I don't think they're effective. I usually demand evidence for the meta argument, which would just be a list of games, but nobody really bothers with it once I do that. It also does not punish bad play, because if somebody does something scummy but it fits 'their meta' then they get away with it. (Ideally, you want to make the scum do as much work as possible in order to avoid detection. If the standard is brutally effective scumhunting, then it's very difficult for the scum to fit in, which likewise makes them easier to find. A little mafia theory according to Jim Groovester for you.)

Also, using meta tells against new or unskilled players very rarely pays off. Usually they're just being themselves, and then they get mislynched.

[ed boy]

Oh, goody, lynching the IC.

I don't like how you're throwing the IC card around. One one hand, you're saying that you should not be placed above suspicion because you're an IC. However, there are posts like this where you make out as if you should get special treatment for it. Your arguments don't consist of 'I'm town, you shouldn't lych me', they consist of 'I'm an IC, you shouldn't lynch me'.

If I thought your arguments were good I wouldn't be complaining about them.

For example, did I give you shit when you said I wasn't scumhunting? No, because I could quite clearly see how you could think that, and to a certain extent, it was true.

Did I give you shit when you started asking me why I was pleased with Mindmaker? Yes, because that's an argument that will get you absolutely nowhere and has no relevance to whether I am town or scum.

I am a very powerful player in the game, and if you think I'm just going to flop over and let you lynch me just to be a nice guy, well, I don't know why you thought that, because that would be ridiculous. If you want to see me lynched, you're going to have to work harder. A lot harder than you are right now, because I will fight you every inch of the way, and I will not tone down any hostility and I will destroy all of your arguments as you struggle to present them. I will not hold back.

I hope you (and everybody else) will take a lesson away from this: Don't ever give up. Giving up is generally regarded as a scum tell (to be more accurate, it was generally regarded as a scum tell), but it's still always a good idea to fight and challenge as much as possible on the way down. If this makes your life difficult, sorry, but maybe one day you'll get to be in the same situation and come to appreciate my position here. If you do it well enough, you might even reverse opinions.

ed boy, I'll have your case too. I have a feeling it's less artificial and less contrived because you're not going about it like you know everything there is to know about playing the game already. Still, I would know what it is and why my answers are apparently unsatisfactory.

It feels to me like you're using your IC position to undermine lines of suspicion and questioning against you. When people do get answers out of you, they are often brief and can be inconsistent. You don't seem to be adding anything with your posts.

Whenever someone asks you a question, you spend as much time griping about being asked the question as you do answering it. You seem to consider being questioned and suspected a terrible thing, and you're determined to make things and difficult as possible for the questioner. I can't see a town player wanting to be so difficult to read, but I can see a scum player wanting that.

You should be taking notes.

If you ask me questions I think are unreasonable, I will make your life difficult.

I will point out, however, that I did spend a lot of time answering all of your questions and explaining why I thought you shouldn't be asking them. However, once you got your answer, you didn't stop asking the same question over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I answered the question to the best of my ability. Just because it wasn't the answer you wanted doesn't mean I'm going to change my answer if you ask again.

I've been making myself available to be read: I answered all your questions. Maybe if you're not getting any good reads, the fault lies with the questions? Or maybe you? At some point, if you're not getting anywhere, you're going to have to give up a line of questioning instead of accusing the person who's answering them of being scum.

The problem is, simply pointing out a bad line of questioning doesn't help a huge amount, or at least doesn't help as much as saying why. If I ask you a bad question, I don't know if it's a bad question or not. I think it's a good question, otherwise I wouldn't be asking it. If you simply say 'no, that's a bad question', then I'm going to try a minor variation on it to see if that variation constitutes a good question. If I get similar responses, then I won't know if you're town and being honest, or if you're scum trying to dissuade me from a perfectly good line of reasoning against you. However, if you were to say 'That's a bad question because of X,Y,Z', and explain the reason why it's a bad question, then not only will I see that it's a bad question sooner, but I will have a better idea of what constitutes a good question and what constitutes a bad question, and I can avoid bad questions in the future.

Powder Miner, I have a problem with one of your posts. You completely missed a replacement. How is this possible? I find your lack of attention to other people's posts very scummy.

Irony Owl, I don't like your lack of activity. In the past four days, you've posted twice. Furthermore, there is an issue I have with one of your posts.

I haven't been scumhunting because you're all noobs. It's hard to figure out who's not actually town when not even the townies are entirely certain what town is. Also, scumhunting people who are flailing tends to not help them stop very well, or at least usually no better than just pointing it out.

That may be an excuse for not scumhunting, but it isn't an excuse for not posting. If people are acting too noobishly, then don't just post nothing for most of a day. That's not solving the problem at all, that's waiting for a mislynch. You could have, at the very least, pointed out which parts of people's posts were noobish. For example, there was the picking I was doing at Jim. At the time, I thought it was a perfectly good line of questioning, and the only person who was saying otherwise was Jim, whose claims I wasn't going to take as gospel given that he was the questionee. If you had told me that it was a bad idea, instead of doing absolutely nothing, then it would have come to an end a lot faster, and it would have saved us both huge amounts of hassle. Instead, the only thing you did for four days was post once to answer some questions against you. If you are town, then you could be doing a lot better, and you're doing a lot worse then I expect a town IC to be doing. Why did you not post anything, IronyOwn?

Unvote. Also, I vote to extend.

[Dariush]

The day is extended and will end Thursday Friday, 6PM GMT.

[IronyOwl]

IronyOwl, you still haven't cast a vote yet.

Yeah, that's gonna have to change.



ed boy:

It feels to me like you're using your IC position to undermine lines of suspicion and questioning against you.

You keep saying this, but you're not really providing examples or (sound) explanations for why he's wrong. Producing either would do wonders for your case.

When people do get answers out of you, they are often brief and can be inconsistent.

Examples. I assume you mean in a scummy way?

If you simply say 'no, that's a bad question', then I'm going to try a minor variation on it to see if that variation constitutes a good question. If I get similar responses, then I won't know if you're town and being honest, or if you're scum trying to dissuade me from a perfectly good line of reasoning against you. However, if you were to say 'That's a bad question because of X,Y,Z', and explain the reason why it's a bad question, then not only will I see that it's a bad question sooner, but I will have a better idea of what constitutes a good question and what constitutes a bad question, and I can avoid bad questions in the future.

First of all, it's generally better to trim down quotes where possible, to avoid the WoT effect. More relevant to the subject, why don't you just ask about it? You've got two players who's main purpose is to help you play the game better, and you're playing trial-and-error with them using bad questions, without so much as bothering to explain that it's a pain in the ass? Why would you ever do that?

Irony Owl, I don't like your lack of activity. In the past four days, you've posted twice. Furthermore, there is an issue I have with one of your posts.

As I said, busy. I didn't realize I'd been that scarce, though.

For example, there was the picking I was doing at Jim. At the time, I thought it was a perfectly good line of questioning, and the only person who was saying otherwise was Jim, whose claims I wasn't going to take as gospel given that he was the questionee. If you had told me that it was a bad idea, instead of doing absolutely nothing, then it would have come to an end a lot faster, and it would have saved us both huge amounts of hassle.

I assumed you remembered and trusted Jim's starting thing about how he'll always be impartial as far as IC advice goes; ie he won't tell you your suspicions are shit just because he doesn't want to get lynched. Thus, I assumed Jim was handling your IC needs, especially since most of what I'd have had to say would be more or less parroting him.

Once again though, if this wasn't the case, why didn't you just ask me about it?



Powder Miner:

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=93126.msg2641414#msg2641414 
Like this post. He does a lot of IC instructing to players, but he manages to fail to do anything close to scumhunting except for remind me that he was asking we a question earlier.

...

That is a terrible post to quote, because the section to you is pointing out two things you've refused to answer, one of which you're still ignoring. And in fact, now it's grown because we've been over it with everyone else in the game.

I HAVE EXPLAINED MY LACK OF SCUMHUNTING MULTIPLE TIMES TO MULTIPLE PEOPLE. CLEARLY MY EXPLANATIONS HAVE BEEN INSUFFICIENT. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS.

I can provide links or quotes if you're really desperate, but I get the feeling you wouldn't read them anyway.

HE asks no new questions, he even doesn't address my answers to his other questions, nor add any other questions.

This is ridiculously false. I mean, the no new questions part is true, but you couldn't even handle the two I already had out to you.

As for the middle, you'd answered one of my questions earlier ("But you said lurkers were your primary concern, not that you had nothing better"), then I pointed out that it wasn't a satisfactory answer, and it took you until now to re-answer it.

You'd also claimed that you'd answered all my questions, so I pointed out the one you'd blatantly missed. It should probably seem familiar, it's the one I'm still trying to get an answer out of you about.

If you're that concerned about your image, I'll let you know that your eventual explanation still seems a bit off from your original statement, but I'm not sure if there's really anything else to do from there.

So, and this is a real question, remember, the kind that you're supposed to answer without being prodded about it four times, what question had you answered that I refused to comment on in that post?