Almightybob

For wiploc - copy and paste this into a thread and press "preview", and all the formatting should sort itself out. It won't be perfect, but here we go:

wiploc is a slippery chap. He has done several scummy things over the course of this game. Largely they took place in Day 1, and by the end of Day 1 I was around 90% sure that wiploc and jay were scumpartners. His actions today towards Ftf throw a little doubt on that, but I am nevertheless pretty sure that wip is scum. Here's why.

Oh and I've adopted the post-numbering system you guys are using, seems like a decent idea.

[quote="wiploc 18"]changing your vote too often is supposed to be a scumtell. And I plan to change my vote plenty often anyway[/quote]

Soft scumclaim? Nah, just kidding, I just thought this one was a bit strange, but I'm not really taking it seriously.

[quote="wiploc 23"]Chainys and RedCoyote have still not been heard from. We could pressure them to talk by putting three votes on each. (This would have the added benefit of identifying the scum who put the third votes on them.) [/quote]

OK well there's a couple of things wrong with this. Firstly, the game started less than 24 hours before this post. Some people can't check MS all the time. I understand that you may not have realised this, and it's not too big a deal. It's the other bits I don't like. Secondly, applying pressure when you've just told people that you're applying pressure is pointless. RC or Chainys are not going to come in and think "crap, I'm at L -2! I need to post!". They're going to think "Oh, I'm at L -2 just for some random pressure. Weird." Thirdly, if you tell everyone "third vote is scum", how many actual scum do you think will place the third vote? If watching for the third vote was your plan to detect scum (and by the way, it's a bad and totally arbitrary plan - why not second vote?), you shouldn't say "here's my plan guys, now watch the nubscum eat up my bait". It defeats the already pointless purpose. Fourthly, I don't like the idea of arbitrarily moving two people to L -2 on the first page, just for perceived inactivity. I can see why Vi called this scummy.

[quote="wiploc 34"] And I've seen that it's a common tactic to bandwagon people who don't post. Hanging back to be inconspicuous is considered a scumtell.[/quote]

Partly, yes, but "not posting" means a couple of days, not one day. And in the quote you used from the mod, they key word was "[b]severely[/b] inactive".

[quote="wiploc 34"]Vi says I act retarded [...] So it was quite surprising when Vi attacked me[/quote]

No, that's not what Vi said. She said "your [b]idea[/b] is retarded at best and scummy at worst". Attacking ideas is a part of what this game is about. Some people, like myself, would have said "pointless". Vi says "retarded". Each to their own, but hostility is a nulltell.

[quote="wiploc 34"]A theory that is by no means airtight. Nonetheless, Vi and Jayfin are both acting scummy.[/quote]

I disagree. It's quite a reach from rude to scummy. So far all Vi has done is attacked one idea, which I agree is a pointless one. You're right, it's not airtight. It's pretty damn leaky.

At this point you disappear until Page 4. I don't like this, and it definitely doesn't sit well with your earlier keeness to put anyone not posting at L -2.

[quote="wiploc 90"]Way ahead of you.[/quote]

[b]This[/b], my friend, is a prime example of active lurking. What's even more strange is that, given the content of this post, you seem to consider yourself "one that's here now". So you are saying that you are here, but you've not posted any responses to the points people have raised about your vote against Vi. Active lurking 101: avoid responding to points raised against your votes, but keep an overall prescence in the thread by occasionally posting.

[quote="wiploc 104"]I may never be as talkative as I would have been before I was taught the error of that way[/quote]

[color=blue]Sorry to hear it[/color]. You said something that people disagreed with, they called you on it. [color=blue]I picked some flowers for you[/color]. If you don't like people opposing your ideas, often quite vehemently, then Mafia is not for you.

[quote="wiploc 122"] My suggestion that we bandwagon non-posters---but only up to L-2---was reasonable. Vi lied and said that it wasn't.[/quote]

Someone disagreeing with you is not lying. Christians and Muslims disagree on their beliefs, it doesn't mean one of them is lying about what they believe. Using overly charged language to try to sway town by courting sympathy and/or making your case seem more valid than it actually is: now that's scummy.

[quote="wiploc 130"]But, when she said my thinking was retarded, she wasn't playing. That was real emotion. She was moved by something; the question is what?

[...]

Nothing in public knowledge justifies Vi's reaction to my suggestion. This suggests that she has some secret knowledge that the rest of us don't have.

[...]

For instance suppose late in a game, one of the townsmen is really looking scummy, and people are piling on, looking to lynch. Now suppose you're a scum who knows that the defendant really isn't scum. You're going to watch closely for who defends him, and how. Maybe there's a cop in the game, who knows the guy isn't guilty. You watch for the cop by watching who defends somebody based on knowledge that isn't public. [/quote]

Moved by something? Nah. This post is full of reach and hypothetical randomness. Some public knowledge that justifies Vi's reaction: your idea was a bad one.

[quote="wiploc 133"]But even the suggestion of going to L-2 on Chainys and RedCoyote was revealing. The suggestion was harmless for town, but somebody---I'm naming no names here---was upset by it anyway.[/quote]

Again, saying someone was upset because they attacked your idea is logical fail. Vi is an IC, she's not going to start crying, stamping her feet and shouting "WEAVE HIM AWONE!" because you suggested a pointless doublewagon, one of which was on her scumpartner. The only person who seems genuinely upset so far is yourself.

[quote="wiploc 133"]You make a good point, but I don't see justifies Vi calling me a retard. She was out of line, off balance for some reason. I don't think you can come up with a non-scum explanation.[/quote]

Again, she called your idea retarded, not you. And there are plenty of non-scum explanations for her insulting your idea.

And leaping from someone being insulting to someone being scummy makes no sense. You're pushing a scumtell which is clearly not real. [b]That[/b] is a scumtell.

[quote="wiploc 133"]What about Vi's emotional response? Did she do the town any favors with her outburst? Even you, I assume, will admit that she benefited the scum. [/quote]

I fail to see how the scum benefited from the loss of your plan. It wasn't a good plan. No-one would have benefited from its execution, and no-one benefited from its dismissal.

[quote="wiploc 137"]Either Vi is scum, or she was a jerk and a bad IC role model. [...] she's either scum or she was a jerk and a bad IC role model [...] She's either scum or she was a jerk and a bad IC role model. [...] And she is guilty, either that or she was a jerk and a bad role model. [/quote]

This is when wip comes up with his little "jerk or scum" mantra, which he bleats for the next several pages. Good scumplay, it's catchy and sticks in the mind. An excellent way of slowly convincing people of something. False dilemma, and other logical fallacies, are big scum tools and hence a large scumtell when they are spotted. This is a fairly obvious one. Also a prime example of confirmation bias.

Both these things are scumplay.

[quote="wiploc 137"]I'm defending myself by attacking Vi. [...] Vi's unwarranted attack managed to sabotage town's productivity. [/quote]

Attacking another instead of defending is scummy. And your idea would not have helped productivity, it would have got two people up to L -2 to "get them to post", then people would have unvoted once they posted. Pointless.

[quote="wiploc 147"]You yourself said that you didn't think I'd be attacking her so strongly if she hadn't attacked me. So you recognize my motive. Self defense, vengeance, plus a solid scumtell make for a more spirited response than a scumtell alone.[/quote]

Well since your solid scumtell is a nulltell, that leaves self-defence and vengeance. That is pretty much the exact definition of OMGUS.

[quote="wiploc 165"]Take Chainys, for instance. Back in post 23, I suggested that we pressure Chainys into participating. Now we're into the 160s, and we still haven't gotten that done. Chainys still isn't significantly participating, and we still aren't significantly pressuring Chainys. Why aren't we pressuring Chainys? Because Vi emotionally attacked me for suggesting it. Her play has been detrimental to town. [/quote]

Well, since you suggested it, this is the first time you've mentioned it again, other than in your reasoning against Vi. And there's a difference between active lurking and just being inactive. Chainys obviously didn't really care that much about the game, so pressuring him into participating would have had no effect. And again, telling people that you're just applying pressure removes any pressure on the person you're targeting. And if you've been wanting people to pressure Chainys, where is your vote? Actions speak louder than words.

[quote="wiploc 165"][b]Liars can convince people that lies are true by repetition[/b]. So I have to think that repetition can work with truth too. [b]With a lie, repetition is all that makes it believable.[/b] But, with the truth, you have the truth itself to make it believable. All you need to do is to repeat the truth until people really actually look at it and see that it is true. Here's what's true: If Vi isn't just a jerk, then she is scum.[/quote]

And since "Vi is either a jerk or scum" is a logical fallacy, and since by definition logical fallacies are untrue: You are a liar, using repetition to attempt to convince the Town that your lie is true. This is what scum do.

[quote="wiploc 169"]b. that was pressuring Chainys. [/quote]

Saying "Chainys, post moar" isn't pressuring Chainys. A vote would be pressuring Chainys, but as your next post illustrates, you're incredibly reluctant to step up to the plate.

[quote="wiploc 228"]Upshot Chainys: Not that I would ever suggest bandwagoning someone for nonparticipation, but if someone else were to start a bandwagon on you, I’ll be early aboard. [/quote]

Another "joke", but what's more troubling is the last part. "if someone else were to start a bandwagon on you, I’ll be early aboard". Why are you so unwilling to take the first step? And then in the same post I read these:

[quote="wiploc 228"]Upshot Heiki: If someone starts a bandwagon on Heiki, I’m happy to climb on.

[...]

Upshot Setana: Makes me nervous, distrustful. I’m willing to bandwagon.[/quote]

So you're just up for jumping on any bandwagon going, but won't start anything yourself. This is textbook newbscum play. It makes it easier to back out of if you're onto the bandwagon a bit later on, and you can point the finger if any go to lynch and say "well it was his idea". I do not like this at all. I'm a little surprised that a bigger deal wasn't made of this.

[quote="wiploc 240"] So, here I am 240 posts into the thread, [b]still[/b] trying to organize the beginnings of a bandwagon on Chainys[/quote]

What you're doing is trying to get everyone else to wagon Chainys without moving your vote yourself. If you want a wagon, start it yourself. How can you expect people to believe in the wagon if you won't show your conviction? Your vote has been with Vi since page 2. These are not the actions of someone who has been trying to start a Chainys wagon since page 1.

[quote="wiploc 247"]I was simultaneously telling the truth and being deliberately provocative. So it is possible to do both at once.[/quote]

And there's the admission, yet you seem unable to comprehend how this could be applied to Vi's "your idea is retarded".

[quote="wiploc 247"]Vi wasn't being remarkably town. She was, at that point, being particularly scummy. [...] Since you took the first position right after Vi had been particularly scummy, I'm assuming that that's when you were lying.[/quote]

Again, repetition of a nulltell-based lie. You are the only person as far as I can see that found Vi's 'outburst' scummy. You keep pushing this agenda.

[quote="wiploc 247"]Why don't you put your vote on Chainys; I'll join you.[/quote]

Again, why won't you go first?

[quote="wiploc 252"]Alright, we need at least a third. Anybody?

Let's squeeze some blood from this turnip. [/quote]

You have a really, REALLY weak case for this bandwagon. First, all the justification you seem to have is that Chainys hasn't posted more. Second, you obviously didn't believe in it enough to put your own vote down. Why is it suddenly acceptable to you to switch votes once Ace moves his? Third, if Vi is so damn scummy, as you've been saying all game, why are you trying to co-ordinate a wagon on the person who obviously isn't around to defend themselves?

This weak wagon-hopping is extremely scummy IMO. If you have someone you think is scummy, vote for them. If you have someone you want to start a wagon on, start it.

Don't say "I will leap on bandwagons if they are formed on X, Y or Z, but for now I'm voting A because A IS CLEARLY SCUM". That is what scum do.

[quote="wiploc 264"]Thank you! That seals the deal for me. I could never figure out why he lied about Vi seeming so town. It makes sense if he is scum, and he was trying to butter up the IC so that she wouldn’t suspect him. I’m sold.[/quote]

Oh come [i]on[/i]. Seriously? What the hell happened to the Chainys wagon you've been "trying to start since page 1" (even though you only [b]just[/b] voted for him)? Only twelve posts ago, you wanted everyone to squeeze blood from the turnip. You seriously expect me to believe that in all this time, you've never considered that flattery was a motive? Only now, once someone else mentions it? Also, now you're hopping onto [i]another[/i] wagon, one which you have hardly expressed any interest in before this point.

I will refer you back to this post:

[quote="wiploc 18"]changing your vote too often is supposed to be a scumtell[/quote]

And this:

[quote="wiploc 122"][quote] [quote="username 43"]Do you think that changing your vote often is a scumtell? Why/why not?[/quote]

[b]I would also like an answer to this please wiploc[/b]. [/quote]

Sure, I do.

[...]

Short answer: Yes, I think it's a scum tell that I will learn to read over time.[/quote]

And yet here you are, leaping onto Chainys and then Ace within the space of 12 posts. That is no soft scumclaim sir, that's a full-on admission.

[quote="wiploc 264"]Yes, Vi is my #1 townie, pretty much where Ace put her. [/quote]

Whoa whoa whoa. What the [color=blue]deuce[/color]? After you've been criticising Ace for his 180 on Vi, you come out with this?

[quote="wiploc 272"]I believe Ace is scum. Short of a confession, I don't see how we could ask for a better case.[/quote]

Your entire case seems to rest on one post. And where was all this conviction before? Surely that one suggestion of buttering up to the ICs hasn't swayed it this much for you?

Unless you can see an opportunity here to push for a Townie lynch.

[quote="wiploc 280"]On the shaky assumption that neither of our absentees are scum, then it takes all five of the remaining townees to lynch. Every one of us. So, Setana, imauseername, whichever one of you isn't scum should take a little time off from voting for me, just long enough to bring the sun down. [/quote]

Wow. This post screams scum. In a little over 2 RL days, and less than 30 posts, you've gone for pleading for a 3rd member on the Chainys wagon, to pushing for the hammer on Ace. What the hell? You're even asking the people voting for you to switch. Impressive brass neck, but seriously. Not everyone is as quick to wagon-hop as you, because it's scummy behaviour to arbitrarily change your vote onto the highest wagon going.

And again, the brushing-off as a joke something which is a very strange thing to say for a Townie. This sudden urge to have a hammer ASAP does not sit well with me at all.

[quote="wiploc 350"]It gets worse. I occasionally (as often as I felt was safe after my treatment after my first-day suggestion) tried to get pressure on Chainys for the next ten or so pages! I even tried to organize another bandwagon on him just before he was replaced.[/quote]

1) [color=blue]You have a wee sit down. I'll put the kettle on, we'll have a nice cuppa and some cake, and you can tell me all about it[/color]. 2) You did not try to get pressure on Chainys over the first 10 pages. You mentioned wagoning him and RC on page 1, then didn't mention it until page 7, then finally voted for Chainys on page 11. 3) Also note that it has been worded to imply that the wagon dissipated because Chainys was replaced, when in fact it was because wip found a better target in Ace. You voted Chainys in 252 and switched to Ace in 264. Oriflare didn't replace in until 288.

[quote="wiploc 350"]In the circumstances, I'm proud of me for doing it at all.[/quote]

See 1 above. And don't try to make out that you were nervous about moving your vote, when you switched again so quickly to put Ace at L -1.

From here on it's mostly OK for a while. You ease up on the pressure of calling for hammer, presumably sensing that you'll just draw attention to yourself. You throw out some random little posts, a bit of analysis on Setanta which I find OK, if occasionally a little presumptive regarding personas. It's odd that you would assume that Setanta's avatar/way of talking is indicative of some sort of act. I would never have jumped to that conclusion, because I see no incentive for people to do so. The fact that this was your instinctive reaction hints that you may be prone to the same thing, or are even doing it right now. And who needs to be acting all the time? Scum.

[quote="wiploc 466"]i knew i had to be patient and wait and [b]look[/b] unconcerned[/quote]

So you were actually impatient and concerned? Worried no-one would hammer?

[quote="wiploc 466"]Like that. if i had posted something like that, i'd be in trouble now. But apparently i'm in trouble just for admitting that i used to be impatient. Fine. [/quote]

Again, [color=blue]you need a hug! *squeeze*[/color]. And if you think something is scummy, say so. Don't beat about the bush and say "if it were me you guys would be all over it" and leave them to pick up on your implications. Dropping little hints and trying to subtly steer Town instead of just saying it is scummy.

And then there's a few posts analysing jay, some about Vi.

Then this: [quote="wiploc 466"]Takes positions more easily than me, and abandons them more easily.[/quote]

As I think I've illustrated, wip doesn't really hesitate to switch positions quickly at all. He may try to make it seem like it, but his earlier wagon-hopping is evidence.

So here's how I think wip has tried to play this.

He's newbscum, so he initially tried to push a couple of early, fairly high wagons on lurkers, because he thought people would agree since the wiki says lurking is scummy. Unfortunately, he didn't quite know what is considered lurking, or the difference between active lurking and inactivity. He then tried to lay low for a bit and avoid some issues, but people called him on that too, so he figured the only way to get past it would be to play the uberTownie. He pushed Vi hard for something he thought he could convince people is a scumtell. When this wasn't cutting much ice, he instead went back to his lurker theory, focusing on Chainys. He was reluctant to start any wagons, because he didn't want to pick a fruitless wagon. He wanted to be involved in one that would lead to a Town lynch, so he specifically said he'd hop onto any of a list. He saw potential in Ace as a target, and suddenly started pushing hard for that lynch. He then realised he might be pushing a little too hard, and was content to sit back a little and let the Ace wagon ride to its conclusion.

My initial thoughts for his scumpartner were jay. I'm not quite so sure given today's activity, although up til the end of Day 1 I was more or less settled on those two. They had some "ooh look we're arguing" banter about being offensive, but continually branded one another "most town" throughout Day 1, in direct contrast to my read of both of them.

Anyway, I've said my piece. This took forever, so I'm gonna take a break now.

To sum up: I'm confident wip is scum. My best guess for his scumpartner at this point is still Ftf.

[b][color=blue]Hug[/color]: wiploc[/b] (wip, this is what you do when you want to [color=blue]make someone feel better[/color])