[Serc]

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 06:29 AM, said:

allot is a word.

yea but in my case its the wrong word.

still a word fail by thyr there...well spotted

[D'riss]

No, i'm just pointing out the spam argument is a crap one.

Because if you were actually interested in voting someone for spam, it probably wouldn't be Emurlahn. I used myself as an example. There are many people more spammy than him. So your argument was weak.

And no, i'm not going to step in and say vote me instead-because I know i'm innocent, and don't know whether or not Emurlahn is.

You are saying i'm doing something I am not. I am simply using myself as an example to highlight the weakness of your argument. Why pick one person for spam when several others have been far worse for it.

It is not a retarded argument at all-because it shows that you haven't thought about your argument. I am not symping Emurlahn, because I am not asking you to vote me. I am not even saying I would be a better vote than him-there you strawman me, because I simply mentioned I was spammier. By your argument though, I would be, because I was spammier. However, this does not mean I am a better vote-because there are other reasons. However, you picked a particularly weak one, which it is easy to see the flaw with, to jump on the train.

[D'riss]

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

yet I had more posts of that than emurlahn has to date.

this is pretty much the case book definition of symping. You are stepping in to take a vote for another player. You are symping emurlahn. regardless of whether he is inno or scum you are symping him as your argument is "i am a better vote than him".

colour me amazed.

Where did I say I was a better vote. Casebook definition of symping.

I never said I was a better vote, simply spammier.

It is not symping, it is showing how bad your argument is.

You voted for someone for spam-and yet ignored the people who were spamming worse.

If spam=scum, why would you ignore the people being more scummy?

So explain, why vote emurlahn for spam yet not one of the, numerous, worse spammers. It makes no sense.

Except that Emurlahn already had a vote, so it's an easier train to jump on.

[Hood's Path]

well i am glad you are so proud of talking a lot of shit. as for your point about my "case", it was a vote with a reason. I never said emurlahn spammed the most and never made out that he did either. You could vote for someone and cite their low post count, even if someone has less.

[Hood's Path]

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

yet I had more posts of that than emurlahn has to date.

this is pretty much the case book definition of symping. You are stepping in to take a vote for another player. You are symping emurlahn. regardless of whether he is inno or scum you are symping him as your argument is "i am a better vote than him".

colour me amazed.

Where did I say I was a better vote. Casebook definition of symping.

I never said I was a better vote, simply spammier.

It is not symping, it is showing how bad your argument is.

You voted for someone for spam-and yet ignored the people who were spamming worse.

If spam=scum, why would you ignore the people being more scummy?

So explain, why vote emurlahn for spam yet not one of the, numerous, worse spammers. It makes no sense.

Except that Emurlahn already had a vote, so it's an easier train to jump on.

do you read the thread, as i have answered this point before, i had two reasons, spam and pressure.

[D'riss]

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

well i am glad you are so proud of talking a lot of shit. as for your point about my "case", it was a vote with a reason. I never said emurlahn spammed the most and never made out that he did either. You could vote for someone and cite their low post count, even if someone has less.

Yes. And then someone would rightfully ask why the hell you weren't voting for the lowest poster, if you are voting simply on low post count. Of course there would be other factors, so you'd have to assume same contribution in those posts. However, spam, by definition, lacks contribution, so in your case that doesn't matter.

I know you never said Emurlahn spammed most.

But why vote him for spam and not those doing it worse?

[Serc]

Thyrllan, on Jul 28 2009, 05:36 AM, said:

Double Double Toil and Trouble!

Catching up.

Thyrllan, on Jul 28 2009, 05:43 AM, said:

As I noted, I voted for him because he claimed to have put on an invisability cloak, and so must be a warlock.

That is what we in the business call a 'joke vote'.

I skimmed through, noone seems to want to talk to me but I need to actually read it all to figure out why you people are being so ... interesting.

Thyrllan, on Jul 28 2009, 06:23 AM, said:

Lynch Serc for thinking 'allot' is a word, in my opinion.



You are all freaks, but I am going to
remove vote
For now.

I need to do some stuff, will be back soon.

Thyrs pnly contribution to everything has t do with why he voted....and then.....nothing.
Doesnt add anything in the 40 or so minutes we are all giving each other a hard time.

Might be sitting bakc and enjoying the carnage...

Remove vote....
Vote Thyrlan

Lets see if this will make him more involved....im very wary of players who play like this on day one.
They could be killers who just want to stay out of the main pissing fights so he can make it through the day without much notice.

[Hood's Path]

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

well i am glad you are so proud of talking a lot of shit. as for your point about my "case", it was a vote with a reason. I never said emurlahn spammed the most and never made out that he did either. You could vote for someone and cite their low post count, even if someone has less.

Yes. And then someone would rightfully ask why the hell you weren't voting for the lowest poster, if you are voting simply on low post count. Of course there would be other factors, so you'd have to assume same contribution in those posts. However, spam, by definition, lacks contribution, so in your case that doesn't matter.

I know you never said Emurlahn spammed most.

But why vote him for spam and not those doing it worse?

because the scummiest is rarely those doing the most of a certain thing, only trying to fit in, and as stated earlier there would be no pressure to vote on someone else whereas pressure acts on everyone to make a decision. the game was going no where and i voted. If you read the thread you would know this as i have stated it on multiple occasions.

[D'riss]

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

yet I had more posts of that than emurlahn has to date.

this is pretty much the case book definition of symping. You are stepping in to take a vote for another player. You are symping emurlahn. regardless of whether he is inno or scum you are symping him as your argument is "i am a better vote than him".

colour me amazed.

Where did I say I was a better vote. Casebook definition of symping.

I never said I was a better vote, simply spammier.

It is not symping, it is showing how bad your argument is.

You voted for someone for spam-and yet ignored the people who were spamming worse.

If spam=scum, why would you ignore the people being more scummy?

So explain, why vote emurlahn for spam yet not one of the, numerous, worse spammers. It makes no sense.

Except that Emurlahn already had a vote, so it's an easier train to jump on.

do you read the thread, as i have answered this point before, i had two reasons, spam and pressure.

Yes. You mentioned pressure right after voting.

Which, to my eyes, sort of defeats the purpose, because once you say it's a pressure vote, the pressure reduces, since people don't get lynched on pressure votes.

Also, that means you basically voted him simply because someone else had. To add pressure. How convinient.

And of course, it's OK for all the other spammers to recieve no pressure whatsoever.

You still haven't answered why you didn't vote a worse spammer, and pressure them, besides "adding pressure". But that doesn't mean you have to vote someone already voted.

[Serc]

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 06:51 AM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

well i am glad you are so proud of talking a lot of shit. as for your point about my "case", it was a vote with a reason. I never said emurlahn spammed the most and never made out that he did either. You could vote for someone and cite their low post count, even if someone has less.

Yes. And then someone would rightfully ask why the hell you weren't voting for the lowest poster, if you are voting simply on low post count. Of course there would be other factors, so you'd have to assume same contribution in those posts. However, spam, by definition, lacks contribution, so in your case that doesn't matter.

I know you never said Emurlahn spammed most.

But why vote him for spam and not those doing it worse?

i believe he said earlyer it was to add pressure on an existing vote.
So i think he just voted for him to add pressure and the spam was some kind of added reason.

Thats my take on it anyway



edit - xpost

This post has been edited by Serc: 28 July 2009 - 02:56 PM

[D'riss]

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 03:55 PM, said:

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

well i am glad you are so proud of talking a lot of shit. as for your point about my "case", it was a vote with a reason. I never said emurlahn spammed the most and never made out that he did either. You could vote for someone and cite their low post count, even if someone has less.

Yes. And then someone would rightfully ask why the hell you weren't voting for the lowest poster, if you are voting simply on low post count. Of course there would be other factors, so you'd have to assume same contribution in those posts. However, spam, by definition, lacks contribution, so in your case that doesn't matter.

I know you never said Emurlahn spammed most.

But why vote him for spam and not those doing it worse?

because the scummiest is rarely those doing the most of a certain thing, only trying to fit in, and as stated earlier there would be no pressure to vote on someone else whereas pressure acts on everyone to make a decision. the game was going no where and i voted. If you read the thread you would know this as i have stated it on multiple occasions.

By, say, following someone on a vote just to add pressure.

Also, he already had a vote-he already had pressure.

The thread may have been going nowhere, but scummy behaviour generally makes it start. If I were to claim to be scum and then leave, it would get the thread going. Doesn't stop it being scummy.

[Path-Shaper]

It is Day 1. 6 hours, 0 minutes remaining.

12 players still alive: Ampelas, D'riss, Emurlahn, Galayn Lord, Hood's Path, Karatallid, Kaschan, Omtose, Ruse, Serc, Sorrit, Thyrllan

7 votes to lynch. 6 votes to go to night.

1 vote Emurlahn (Hood's Path)
2 votes Hood's Path (Sorrit, D'riss)
1 vote Thyrllan (Serc)
1 vote Serc (Karatallid)


Not voted: Ampelas, Emurlahn, Galayn Lord, Kaschan, Omtose, Ruse, Thyrllan

[D'riss]

Serc, on Jul 28 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 06:51 AM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

well i am glad you are so proud of talking a lot of shit. as for your point about my "case", it was a vote with a reason. I never said emurlahn spammed the most and never made out that he did either. You could vote for someone and cite their low post count, even if someone has less.

Yes. And then someone would rightfully ask why the hell you weren't voting for the lowest poster, if you are voting simply on low post count. Of course there would be other factors, so you'd have to assume same contribution in those posts. However, spam, by definition, lacks contribution, so in your case that doesn't matter.

I know you never said Emurlahn spammed most.

But why vote him for spam and not those doing it worse?

i believe he said earlyer it was to add pressure on an existing vote.
So i think he just voted for him to add pressure and the spam was some kind of added reason.

Thats my take on it anyway



edit - xpost

I know. But adding pressure is a really crap excuse, and strikes me as hopping on a train with a reason that can easily be ditched later. "I didn't really think he was that scummy-I was just adding pressure. Nothing wrong with that."

Also, he already had a vote, he already had some pressure, why not pressure someone with none?

To me it looks mlike trying to hop on a train discretely.

[Hood's Path]

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 03:57 PM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 03:55 PM, said:

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

well i am glad you are so proud of talking a lot of shit. as for your point about my "case", it was a vote with a reason. I never said emurlahn spammed the most and never made out that he did either. You could vote for someone and cite their low post count, even if someone has less.

Yes. And then someone would rightfully ask why the hell you weren't voting for the lowest poster, if you are voting simply on low post count. Of course there would be other factors, so you'd have to assume same contribution in those posts. However, spam, by definition, lacks contribution, so in your case that doesn't matter.

I know you never said Emurlahn spammed most.

But why vote him for spam and not those doing it worse?

because the scummiest is rarely those doing the most of a certain thing, only trying to fit in, and as stated earlier there would be no pressure to vote on someone else whereas pressure acts on everyone to make a decision. the game was going no where and i voted. If you read the thread you would know this as i have stated it on multiple occasions.

By, say, following someone on a vote just to add pressure.

Also, he already had a vote-he already had pressure.

The thread may have been going nowhere, but scummy behaviour generally makes it start. If I were to claim to be scum and then leave, it would get the thread going. Doesn't stop it being scummy.

Yeah cause i always fit right in.

Listen, you do what ever you like, i stated my reasons and it started discussion as i wanted. Your argument that my vote is weak is pointless as its day 1 and we had only around 110 posts at the time. If you want to lynch me, go ahead and try.

[Serc]

Well...i see the validity in all your guys arguments.

HP...your second vote was quite weird in the way you delivered it. As i said before, I also felt some kind of suspicion towards what you had done but elected to keep it to myslef for the time being.

Ehmurlahn on the other hand does SEEM to be getting allot of backup.

I dunno....to me its seemed like a bunch of innos having a argument over different styles and perseptions of how to play the game.

[Hood's Path]

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Serc, on Jul 28 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 06:51 AM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

well i am glad you are so proud of talking a lot of shit. as for your point about my "case", it was a vote with a reason. I never said emurlahn spammed the most and never made out that he did either. You could vote for someone and cite their low post count, even if someone has less.

Yes. And then someone would rightfully ask why the hell you weren't voting for the lowest poster, if you are voting simply on low post count. Of course there would be other factors, so you'd have to assume same contribution in those posts. However, spam, by definition, lacks contribution, so in your case that doesn't matter.

I know you never said Emurlahn spammed most.

But why vote him for spam and not those doing it worse?

i believe he said earlyer it was to add pressure on an existing vote.
So i think he just voted for him to add pressure and the spam was some kind of added reason.

Thats my take on it anyway



edit - xpost

I know. But adding pressure is a really crap excuse, and strikes me as hopping on a train with a reason that can easily be ditched later. "I didn't really think he was that scummy-I was just adding pressure. Nothing wrong with that."

Also, he already had a vote, he already had some pressure, why not pressure someone with none?

To me it looks mlike trying to hop on a train discretely.

and your the second person today to come to his aid so to me you look like scum.

[D'riss]

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Serc, on Jul 28 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 06:51 AM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

well i am glad you are so proud of talking a lot of shit. as for your point about my "case", it was a vote with a reason. I never said emurlahn spammed the most and never made out that he did either. You could vote for someone and cite their low post count, even if someone has less.

Yes. And then someone would rightfully ask why the hell you weren't voting for the lowest poster, if you are voting simply on low post count. Of course there would be other factors, so you'd have to assume same contribution in those posts. However, spam, by definition, lacks contribution, so in your case that doesn't matter.

I know you never said Emurlahn spammed most.

But why vote him for spam and not those doing it worse?

i believe he said earlyer it was to add pressure on an existing vote.
So i think he just voted for him to add pressure and the spam was some kind of added reason.

Thats my take on it anyway



edit - xpost

I know. But adding pressure is a really crap excuse, and strikes me as hopping on a train with a reason that can easily be ditched later. "I didn't really think he was that scummy-I was just adding pressure. Nothing wrong with that."

Also, he already had a vote, he already had some pressure, why not pressure someone with none?

To me it looks mlike trying to hop on a train discretely.

and your the second person today to come to his aid so to me you look like scum.

One thing that really annoys me is how hung up people get about people defending others.

Why is it scummy for me to defend someone?

Consider:

I think he would be a bad lynch.
I think someone else would be a better lynch.

Therefore, it makes completely sense for me to defend the person I think would be a bad lynch, and try to get the person I think would be a better lynch lynched.

Do I know he is inno? No.
Do I think he is more likely inno than you? Definetely.

So why shouldn't I defend him?

Because it makes me look scummy? That depends on how you look at it.

Yes, scum are going to defend each other. However, they are not the only people who do so-it hurts the team if the innos don't defend people they think are more likely innos.

[Serc]

Maybe we would be better served by voting off someone who has tried to stay out of this arguing....
like say....THYR!!!

i wouldn't want to get involved if i were scum....i would if one of my partners were involved....but even then rather unwittingly.

[Hood's Path]

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Serc, on Jul 28 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

D'riss, on Jul 28 2009, 06:51 AM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

well i am glad you are so proud of talking a lot of shit. as for your point about my "case", it was a vote with a reason. I never said emurlahn spammed the most and never made out that he did either. You could vote for someone and cite their low post count, even if someone has less.

Yes. And then someone would rightfully ask why the hell you weren't voting for the lowest poster, if you are voting simply on low post count. Of course there would be other factors, so you'd have to assume same contribution in those posts. However, spam, by definition, lacks contribution, so in your case that doesn't matter.

I know you never said Emurlahn spammed most.

But why vote him for spam and not those doing it worse?

i believe he said earlyer it was to add pressure on an existing vote.
So i think he just voted for him to add pressure and the spam was some kind of added reason.

Thats my take on it anyway



edit - xpost

I know. But adding pressure is a really crap excuse, and strikes me as hopping on a train with a reason that can easily be ditched later. "I didn't really think he was that scummy-I was just adding pressure. Nothing wrong with that."

Also, he already had a vote, he already had some pressure, why not pressure someone with none?

To me it looks mlike trying to hop on a train discretely.

and your the second person today to come to his aid so to me you look like scum.

One thing that really annoys me is how hung up people get about people defending others.

Why is it scummy for me to defend someone?

Consider:

I think he would be a bad lynch.
I think someone else would be a better lynch.

Therefore, it makes completely sense for me to defend the person I think would be a bad lynch, and try to get the person I think would be a better lynch lynched.

Do I know he is inno? No.
Do I think he is more likely inno than you? Definetely.

So why shouldn't I defend him?

Because it makes me look scummy? That depends on how you look at it.

Yes, scum are going to defend each other. However, they are not the only people who do so-it hurts the team if the innos don't defend people they think are more likely innos.

because if inno he can defend himself. because it looks like your defending him and the only role int he game that would likely be wanting to defend another player is the symp. If your inno and they are guilty when lynched you would be next. if they are inno it doesnt clear you but you may come under suspicion as you could have been defending him as you knew he was inno.

theres some quick off the top of my head reasons why blatant defending is bad.

[D'riss]

Serc, on Jul 28 2009, 04:09 PM, said:

Maybe we would be better served by voting off someone who has tried to stay out of this arguing....
like say....THYR!!!

i wouldn't want to get involved if i were scum....i would if one of my partners were involved....but even then rather unwittingly.

Do you maybe mean unwillingly?

After HP the middle of the road players are probably next.

However, I think HP probably would stay out of things if he hadn't been pulled up on stuff. His original vote is rather middle of the road, it just follows you, with the easy pressure excuse. I think if he had the choice he would rather happily be middle of the roading.