Less Pressure - Game Over

by Ryan Murphy Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:31 pm

First topic message reminder :

To see live countdown widgets when logged in, go to Profile, Preferences, choose to always allow HTML, and save.

Game Information:

by Kitty Wilde Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:22 am

Tina dear, don't panic, sometimes I leave this tab open and go do other stuff, then start working on a post, go away again, etc. Like just a few moments ago, when I went to get something to eat in the middle of typing up my post there!

I'm just posting this now because you seem really eager to see posts from me and I'm giving you the explanation on my 'active lurking' ASAP while I go reply to some other posts~

by Kitty Wilde Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:36 am

“Thoughts on Quinn, Noah and Lauren?”

Quinn – Putting effort into scumhunting, that’s always good, except I feel her points against me were a bit weak and like I said in my earlier bigger post, subtle parroting with the IC against you. Mostly null, maybe slight scum. Can’t forget the whole “I forgot this forum existed” thing she said after her confirmation post.

Noah – Still hasn’t posted, and idk why not :c I can’t really have an opinion on him because it’s just a confirmation and a post voting the IC (silly willy), although I am taking his avoidance into suspicion. Maybe he’ll post since you said he’s on and then I can say more about him!

Lauren – I see several instances of buddying which is unlike the person I think Lauren is although she’s explained the first instance, the one you accused her on when you voted her, pretty well. Her suspicion of Quinn I thought was fairly justified at the time (when she didn’t really say anything explaining why she voted me, although I did go on after Quinn’s explanation). I like how she was continuing to point out things in your posts to keep you on your toes although after rereading her posts I can’t really see what she’s trying to get at, almost as if she was posting without content, know what I mean?

by Tina Cohen-Chang Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:30 am

Kitty Wilde wrote:Why is buddying on an IC's opinion 'natural for town,' Tina?

Since what I said seems scummier paraphrased, here's what I said verbatum:

Tina Cohen-Chang wrote:Seems somewhat buddying-ish that you didn't find my actions scummy in the first place, but in light of an IC's opinions your views shift. Granted this is also somewhat natural for town, albiet a little less so.

People's views can change in light of other people's opinions, and my main point is that this is particularly likely to happen if the other person in question happens to be guaranteed town.

Saying that I was referring to buddying is strawmanning to some extent but I can see where the confusion is drawn from.

Also concerning active lurking: that's a perfectly reasonable explanation and just the sort of thing I was looking for~~ Sorry if I came off as brusque but I'm just trying to get things done and questions answered!

by Lauren Zizes Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:51 am

At this point select players are really, really harming the Village with their prolonged inactivity. If Tina's claims are true and, Noah was indeed active lurking, then that is very circumspect especially considering his only action thus far was to place down a troll vote on an IC. Unvote, Vote Noah Puckerman. Get your shit together and post so more otherwise I have no qualms going through with this vote, severely hurting the Town's chances in a game skewed this far in Town's favour is fucking ridiculous and I can only see it is scum play.

by Lauren Zizes Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:55 am

Oh and since the whole 'Analyse intent not content' shit that I was getting at earlier was interpreted as 'posting without content', what I was getting at is that more experienced players in this format know that, as scum or Town, scumhunting is imperative to appearing Town, and as such good players can make very town-aligned posts regardless of alignment, so I've begun to look more at the possibilities for the intent behind their content (i.e. 'You seem like a really experienced player and are confirmed Town so I'll roll with you' can have the intent of 'You're a confirmed Town player who has shown a degree of an ego, so I'll appeal to it and hopefully lessen the heat on me to an extent' [which is what I was getting at earlier])

by Tina Cohen-Chang Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:04 am

Yeah just noting here that I saw Noah active lurking again not too long ago.. the forum showed both Lauren and Noah as online, and when I went to check in I was hoping I'd see Noah had posted but alas~

Also just wanna say that I now have Kitty pegged as well ;] not that it really matters to anything but my ego!

by Noah Puckerman Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:34 am

Hi all,

First things first. Unvote Sue Sylvester.
I was feeling trolly. Bear with me.

Now that that's taken care of.

@Tina: I am, lo and behold, an inexperienced mafia player and thus take quite a while to analyze the posts here and make general observations and conclusions of my own. Hence the "lurk". I've also neglected to check this thread as much as I should. Making a note to change that in the near future. Feel free to call me out as scum for this if you want; I'm honestly just not very good at the game (I can't wait for all the "Noah is scum" arguments you'll pull up outta this).

Now, for whatever scumhunting I can manage without falling asleep (It's late).

@Tina: At the moment, you're giving off a (slight) pro-town vibe to me, though you are extremely aggressive and do seem to buddy up with the ICs at times. Whatever you say, a buddying sentence is a buddying sentence, and the words "I know you're clean and you seem to be a fairly decent player…" sure sound like buddying to me.

@Kitty: First and foremost, stop calling me "kiddo"….just kidding.

I agree with the one point you made recently concerning Lauren. Some of the stuff that she's said: "I fully accepted what I was saying was entirely parroting", "This will be taken as solid buddying", and "Going to second what Tina said actually" seem like rather self-conscious and scummy things to say, especially since you've expressed the same opinions more than once. Note: I'm not trying to buddy with you, I'm merely agreeing with what you're saying…take from it what you will.

@Lauren: Flipping more towards scum than town. See above.

@Quinn: Random scumhunting does not a townie make. The reasons that you've given concerning Kitty's scumminess are a bit sketchy. And the only post you've made is concerning your scumhunting on Kitty. Again, not trying to buddy with Kitty here but this is just how I see the present situation.

And as for Santana and Will…yeah, where are they. o.O. I'm not in much of a position to call them out myself, but those guys really gotta step up their game.

No votes as of yet. I'll try making some better analysis tomorrow when I'm not as sleep-deprived. Off to bed I go.

by Lauren Zizes Tue Jun 25, 2013 8:25 am

@Noah, I'm sorry but I really can't take your arguments against me seriously when your last line is 'I'm not trying to buddy with you ...', given that has entirely the same motivation as all of the examples you cited of me being 'overly self conscious' about my alignment.

by Lauren Zizes Tue Jun 25, 2013 8:28 am

On another note can the Moderator for this game get an activity check on both Will and Santana? The former is a fucking IC who for whatever reason is completely boning the town right now and the latter is really irking me with their inactivity.

by Quinn Fabray Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:01 pm

Tina Cohen-Chang wrote:Glad to see some content from you Quinn, hopefully you can keep it up!~

I'm not really sure what that last point concerning Kitty means ("Looking for villager rather than scum") means. Are you saying we shouldn't have townreads?

I'm saying finding mafia should be a higher priority. Right now, getting town reads on people isn't going to help us pick who to lynch. Furthermore, it should be obvious that the mafia already know who all of the villagers are, and thus it's even easier for them to get "townreads" on people they know are town. Not only that, but keep in mind that while it's the town's goal to lynch mafia, it's the mafia's goal simply to "not get lynched" and the easiest way for them to do that is to get people to think that they're town while not actually committing to accusing anyone as mafia.

Tina Cohen-Chang wrote:I'd like it if you could elaborate on why I'm scummy as well. Specifics are nice, since "feels a little scummy" is extremely non-committal and pretty typical of scumplay.

Like I said, mostly post 261 came off as scummy for me. (further elaboration in reply to Kitty)

Tina Cohen-Chang wrote:Also do you have even know what active lurking means? It means they're around, i.e. viewing the thread, but not posting. I have rarely seen anyone online but not posting, so if this is what you mean and you can substantiate this claim then that evidence would be really helpful to the town!

The only person I've seen "active lurking" is Kitty actually. I saw her viewing without posting, but this was yesterday after posting not even like 2 posts ago so I didn't call her on it. Don't wanna start a catfight! I see you viewing again now, Kitty (you were viewing even before my last post and I just went back and refreshed and didn't see a post from you), so hopefully we'll get content from you asap!

I said "lurking" i.e. not posting, not "active lurking". I'm not interested in analyzing whether people are online or not (for all you know they just happen to leave the tab open even when they're not actually there, or they logged off and are reading the thread without actually being logged in; it's just not a reliable source of information at all)

Kitty Wilde wrote:
The format of this forum is icky and my quotes are probably going to be all messy :/)
Where am I buddying Tina?

Kitty Wilde wrote:Whoa girl. 3 times a day is pretty extreme, you don't even see people posting every day in some of the games on PO. Though we do only have a week for d1...everybody needs to come out and talk some. Don't be shy Very Happy

As for Tina, a quadruple post right off the bat is very aggressive. Usually villagers go all out like that (although I would expect one of the ICs to do so) but you're the only one who has really posted content so far so it's hard to look at it in this isolation.

Kitty out.

(emphasis added)

Kitty Wilde wrote:In that post you were quoting me I was disagreeing with the activity thing and bringing attention to the quadruple post which as I said seemed like aggressive town but because there was basically little else other than RVS it was a pretty bare opinion anyways.
Your second point I basically addressed in the earlier sentence, the only things I could draw from there were the vote on Lauren and the call for (three times a day haha that's cute) activity.

And you chose to not draw anything from what was actually important (the vote on Lauren)?

Kitty Wilde wrote:I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the fluff. You might be talking about my comment on Noah but I'm letting him know that a dumb vote on an IC expecting us to disregard it isn't going to happen.

I do consider that fluff, it just points out that he voted someone who was confirmed town without actually saying anything about what you think of Noah or his action at all.

Kitty Wilde wrote:Scum doesn't need to look for villagers because they know their team. I basically just said I saw Tina as very slight town from her posts.

You're wrong. It's very easy for mafia to "find" villagers because they know who the villagers are. That's why scumhunting is much more important; because it's far easier for town to have scumreads that they believe in, and it's much harder for the mafia to fake them. That's also why I think you're scum; because you haven't spent much time scumhunting at all.

Kitty Wilde wrote:Speaking of parroting you're basically citing Sue's reasons on your scum feeling of Tina, explain more honey.

For one, "encouraging activity" is an easy way for anyone to look like they're town, whether they're actually town or not. Even though it should be a pro-town thing, I don't really see her scumhunting at all, so I'm left wondering whether she actually is town or not (after all, she's easily the most active player, so...)
Also, like I said, her post here felt scummy to me.

There's been too much talking about things that aren't that important. Right now, I'd like to know who you think are scum!
Right now, I'm rather certain at least one of Kitty and Tina is scum, and possibly both. I think it's somewhat likely that at least one of the 'lurkers' (that is, Santana and Noah) are scum as well. I don't think Lauren is particularly scummy.

BTW my vote is still on Kitty Wilde, just so you know.

by Ryan Murphy Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:26 pm

Santana Lopez has been prodded.

by Kitty Wilde Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:03 pm

Hello!

So, @Quinn
Alright. The quote from me you underlined has me saying that /usually/ a villager would post like that, BUT, since she was the only one posting at the time, it’s difficult to really put down a label on it, although it still leaned town to me.

Re: the vote on Lauren. It wasn’t that badly placed cause you could easily see what Lauren was saying as buddying, I personally though she was expanding on it though and less actually buddying.

As for Noah’s vote I’m going to have to agree with the others that speculating on its implications is mostly WIFOM and I’d personally see it as scummy. Basically what I meant in the post was that I would never see it as null-town.

True on the mafia notions. I thought I was scumhunting in my recent posts but okay. (not that scumhunting necessarily = town, I hope you aren’t strictly going by that!)

Yeah, calling for activity is pretty null, but how do you not see Tina as scumhunting? (No really this is not a rhetorical question) Or maybe we have very different perceptions of it…

Now for some other stuff!

It’s funny how almost all of Noah’s last post is basically talking about buddying and him doing it too.
Also: “make general observations and conclusions of my own.” Why would you not just post your thoughts on anything that looks out of the blue?

Also looks like you’re making too much out of that one statement of Tina’s which has already been pointed out. Is aggressive play necessarily bad/scummy to you?

Buddying me, even though he’s denying it with the points, on Lauren and Quinn. And then the worst part is he’s not voting, you seem to have found questionable behavior in a few people (although it was apparently late for him).

Still, I’m going to have to unvote Quinn Fabray
Vote Noah Puckerman

Questions!

@Lauren ~ I feel you haven’t really said much besides calling Noah out for inactivity, what are your thoughts on Tina and Quinn?

@Noah ~ I’d like you to elaborate more on your thoughts on Lauren and me

@Tina ~ Your thoughts on Noah’s last post?

by Lauren Zizes Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:05 pm

Right now Noah is standing out as plausible scum for me. The most irksome thing he did in my eyes is to specifically go out of his way to say 'Yes, I am an inexperienced player'. To me, the intent behind this just feels like 'I should be excused for certain things because I'm new!', which I think is a horrible mindset to try and cultivate (and frankly, the response to an inexperienced player is almost always this). Considering the point in parenthesis I just made, I can't see the intent behind mentioning this being anything other than 'I should be excused for certain things'. While I do want to believe he is being genuine with his excuse for active lurking, the depth of his posts seem to imply he is more capable than he is trying to let us believe when he says he is 'inexperienced'.

Santana is looking increasingly bad to me in her prolonged absence, and I damn well hope she has a good excuse or I'm gonna be legitimately pissed off with her shit.

by Ryan Murphy Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:07 pm

Please remember to bold your votes or they will not be counted.

by Lauren Zizes Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:24 pm

@Kitty; I thought I had already posted something about Tina but if not I'll just go for it again.

Tina - Leaning Town. I felt they answered my concerns about the intent behind their possible buddying with Sue fairly well (especially given the general tone of the exchange). They've been constructive to the thread in general and have been pretty forward with regards to trying to cut down activity (although I will admit that even though these are town-motivated, they're easy for scum to do too). However, a bit of a concern for me is that they seem to be really hung up on activity and yet are not pressuring Santana overly much (who, for me, stands as 'probable scum' given her inactivity stunts).

Quinn - Probable Town. I see very little wrong here. They raised a noteworthy point about the activity thing (I'm guilty of this against Santana too admittedly). I also found their point about scum finding it very easy to pull out town reads interesting, and again fairly noteworthy (so I'm going to second their motion, everyone should make a post detailing those they think is most scummy and justify it). They're also actively scum hunting and putting out appropriate pressure, which I always get a pro-town vibe from, as opposed to the 'pressure for pressure's sake' I sometimes see.

Going to take time here to say I'm happy for either a Noah or a Santana lynch, for reasons I've already detailed.

by Tina Cohen-Chang Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:29 pm

Concerning the Noah post: Yeah, it was really bad. He basically parrots others the entire post, and doesn't put forward a single original opinion bar his opinion on Quinn.

The weirdest part is that, as Lauren already said, he parrots Kitty in calling out Lauren for being overly selfconscious. Meanwhile his entire post is filled with things like "I can't wait for all the "Noah is scum" arguments you'll pull up outta this" (Yes, there are a lot) and "I'm not trying to buddy".

As I mentioned, his only original opinion is concerning Quinn, in which he essentially calls Quinn scummy for only making one post. This is extremely consisten with his own posting, since he hadn't made a single post with content. Methinks someone is trying to hard to conceal a teammate, more on this in a sec.

Concerning Quinn's post:

"I said "lurking" i.e. not posting, not "active lurking". I'm not interested in analyzing whether people are online or not (for all you know they just happen to leave the tab open even when they're not actually there, or they logged off and are reading the thread without actually being logged in; it's just not a reliable source of information at all)"

Completely devalues active lurking, which is actually perfectly valid information since it is clearly a more scum-motivated action. And who does this indirectly speak out in favor of? None other than our dear Noah.

Quinn is right to say scumreads are more important than townreads, but she's completely ignoring the fact that at the time of the "Kitty says Tina is pro-town" post, literally no one else had posted content. If she thought I was town at the time, and no one else had posted, who was she supposed to form a scumread on? Its really not that noteworthy that she didn't comment on my vote on Lauren, since it was not that unusual for an RVS vote.

Furthermore, your reads seem entirely inconsistent. You have scumreads on Kitty and I for "not scumhunting". But answer me this: what scumhunting has Lauren done? Or better yet, Noah?

You seem to be
1) completely buddying up with Sue in sharing her (early game) opinion on me.
2) making sure to post an original opinion, although it seems entirely contrived
3) completely devaluing activity
4) hard ignoring Noah

Right now I have scumreads on both Noah and Quinn, and would be more than happy to lynch either of them. I have townreads on both Kitty and Lauren, but I wouldn't put it past either of them to be scum since both seem quite experienced. However, the way Quinn is devaluing activity makes me think a scumteam of Quinn/Noah/Santana is a possibility.

by Tina Cohen-Chang Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:34 pm

@Lauren: I haven't been pressuring Santana as much as Noah since I had seen several times Noah was viewing the thread, so I knew he was completely capable of posting but was avoiding doing so. I would put a vote on Santana but at this point I feel I have much more reason to vote either Noah or Quinn.

Thanks for the content guys! ;]

I also have Noah pegged now as well :]

by Tina Cohen-Chang Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:36 pm

Note: just re-read and Noah doesn't call Quinn scummy but rather simply calls her sketchy. Very non-commital but maintaining the negative connotations, still fitting the bill of a play to try and hide a possible partner.

by Quinn Fabray Tue Jun 25, 2013 7:10 pm

Tina Cohen-Chang wrote:Concerning Quinn's post:

"I said "lurking" i.e. not posting, not "active lurking". I'm not interested in analyzing whether people are online or not (for all you know they just happen to leave the tab open even when they're not actually there, or they logged off and are reading the thread without actually being logged in; it's just not a reliable source of information at all)"

Completely devalues active lurking, which is actually perfectly valid information since it is clearly a more scum-motivated action. And who does this indirectly speak out in favor of? None other than our dear Noah.

Please don't try and distort my words. I'm not saying activity isn't important, obviously lack of posting is anti-town if nothing else. I'm just saying that stalking people to see whether their profile says they're logged in or not doesn't feel like a particularly good use of time to me, and I don't think it's particularly relevant whether or not Noah is logged in and Santana is not (for all you know assuming Santana is mafia, maybe they're being careful to not log in while reading the thread so they can stay under the radar, and Noah just stays logged in because it's more convenient).

Tina Cohen-Chang wrote:Quinn is right to say scumreads are more important than townreads, but she's completely ignoring the fact that at the time of the "Kitty says Tina is pro-town" post, literally no one else had posted content. If she thought I was town at the time, and no one else had posted, who was she supposed to form a scumread on? Its really not that noteworthy that she didn't comment on my vote on Lauren, since it was not that unusual for an RVS vote.

Tina Cohen-Chang wrote:
Lauren Zizes wrote:Going to second what Tina said actually. Those who have been cleaned by Word of God should really be the major forces driving the town forward right now. They have absolutely nothing to lose and as such can quite easily play as aggressively as they like to push pressure onto players, rather than playing as passively as they are now.

Unvote
Vote Lauren Zizes

Blatant parroting and buddying.
And we're already out of RVS.
Damn I'm good.

(emphasis added)

Tina Cohen-Chang wrote:Furthermore, your reads seem entirely inconsistent. You have scumreads on Kitty and I for "not scumhunting". But answer me this: what scumhunting has Lauren done? Or better yet, Noah?

Read my previous post, I gave plenty of other reasons as to why I think you and Kitty are scummy.
Lauren doesn't come off as scummy to me in general, I haven't had time to go through Noah's post(s) yet.

Tina Cohen-Chang wrote:You seem to be
1) completely buddying up with Sue in sharing her (early game) opinion on me.

It's hilarious how you throw out the word "buddying" so much here, since I haven't even said anything to Sue, much less the flattering that you (and Kitty, to a lesser degree) have done to other people in your previous posts. I hope you can tell the difference between agreeing with someone's read (and I even gave other reasons why I felt that that opinion was valid!) and blatantly sucking up to them.

Tina Cohen-Chang wrote:2) making sure to post an original opinion, although it seems entirely contrived

Nice baseless speculation there, if you think my opinion is so "contrived" why don't you point out why it's not valid then.

Tina Cohen-Chang wrote:3) completely devaluing activity

See first section.

Tina Cohen-Chang wrote:4) hard ignoring Noah

Quinn Fabray wrote:I think it's somewhat likely that at least one of the 'lurkers' (that is, Santana and Noah) are scum as well.

(btw EBWOP: delete "at least")

Tina Cohen-Chang wrote:Right now I have scumreads on both Noah and Quinn, and would be more than happy to lynch either of them. I have townreads on both Kitty and Lauren, but I wouldn't put it past either of them to be scum since both seem quite experienced. However, the way Quinn is devaluing activity makes me think a scumteam of Quinn/Noah/Santana is a possibility.

LMAO nice pick of scumteam, you pick the rest of the scum as the two other lurkers who haven't done much of anything at all yet.

Vote Tina Cohen-Chang
Blatantly misrepresenting my posts, as well as other posts that were made, pushing for an easier lynch (one of the two 'lurkers') for the day after, "of course everyone else that's actively posting that isn't Quinn is town-ish", you're definitely scum and I sincerely think you should be lynched this day.

Will look through and reply to Kitty's post later (same with Noah's and Lauren's).

by Tina Cohen-Chang Tue Jun 25, 2013 8:18 pm

Wow.
Can't wait to respond in depth when I'm at a computer.

by Tina Cohen-Chang Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:50 am

Quinn Fabray wrote: Please don't try and distort my words. I'm not saying activity isn't important, obviously lack of posting is anti-town if nothing else. I'm just saying that stalking people to see whether their profile says they're logged in or not doesn't feel like a particularly good use of time to me, and I don't think it's particularly relevant whether or not Noah is logged in and Santana is not (for all you know assuming Santana is mafia, maybe they're being careful to not log in while reading the thread so they can stay under the radar, and Noah just stays logged in because it's more convenient).

I never distorted your words. I said you were devaluing active lurking, not lurking. Which is precisely the case. The difference between the two is essentially the difference between Noah and Santana: while Noah was actively viewing the thread, Santana was not. Therefore we can conclude with complete accuracy that Noah had the opportunity to post but was choosing not to, which directly conflicts with town interests. In Santana’s case: for all we know maybe she lost a grandparent. It is completely possible that real life happened and Santana wasn’t able to post. Now this may not be the case, and I’m not saying Santana isn’t scummy for lurking, but the truth is we don’t know. With Noah, we do. That’s why active lurking is more scummy than lurking.

If you’re referring to point 3, “completely devaluing activity”, I’ll admit my wording was off. I wrote the post in a rush, so I’m sorry <3 What I was referring to there was your devaluing of “encouraging activity”, which you earlier said to be “an easy way for anyone to look like they're town, whether they're actually town or not”. I feel like you’re writing this off entirely too easily in order to leave yourself room for your scum read. I also think it’s strange that you want me to scumhunt rather than push people to post content, but scumhunting can’t happen without content so..

Quinn Fabray wrote: (emphasis added)

And your point being? I’ve already explained why I characterized it as a non-RVS vote, ([url=https://poanon.forumotion.com/t12p23-less-pressure-day-1#351] here[/url] in case you missed it). Are you really saying you think that I was being completely serious with that vote? If not, what the fuck are you trying to say? Hard to tell when you simply underline a few sentences of mine. You still haven’t explained why you think Kitty not commenting on it is scummy, and I stand by my point that my vote really wasn’t /that/ unusual for RVS.

Quinn Fabray wrote: Read my previous post, I gave plenty of other reasons as to why I think you and Kitty are scummy.

Ummm are we reading the same posts? Cuz you really don’t, at least not that I can see. In [url=https://poanon.forumotion.com/t12p23-less-pressure-day-1#371]one post[/url] you point to 261 and give a vague “among other reasons”. In [url=https://poanon.forumotion.com/t12p46-less-pressure-day-1#401]this one[/url] you again point to 261 (note that this isn’t my post by rather Sue’s, or at least this is how it shows up in my browser, and this is why I say you’re buddying Sue on your reasoning for why I’m scummy). Other than that you say that I’m not scumhunting at all (I’ll get to this in a sec) and then actually point to my post (232, post numbers here are really random) simply saying it was scummy. So all in all I see only two reasons why you think I’m scum: 1) because you agree with Sue that one of my posts are scummy, but you don’t elaborate at all, and 2) I haven’t scumhunted.

The second point seems extremely weak. I’ve pushed people to contribute, seeing as without contributions there really can’t be any scumhunting going on. Sure, I didn’t take an offensive against either Lauren or Kitty, but I certainly have been prodding them for opinions and such. Just because I didn’t fabricate a scumread on one of them doesn’t make me scum. Now that other users have started posting I have actually been able to form scumreads and develop a genuine case.

So yeah in all you most definitely have not given plenty of reasons as to why I’m scum, and the one original reason you’ve provided is extremely vague and not at all valid.

Quinn Fabray wrote: Nice baseless speculation there, if you think my opinion is so "contrived" why don't you point out why it's not valid then.

I already have.

I find it contrived because you call Kitty out for not scumhunting, but I fail to see how Lauren has done any more scumhunting than Kitty and yet somehow Lauren deserves a townread. I already asked you to explain this but you chose not to, and if you’re the player I have you pegged as this is definitely within your scum meta!

No I am not actually using meta arguments in an anon game don’t worry~~~

I said you’re hard-ignoring Noah because you failed to provide analysis on his substantial and substantially scummy post, which you still have yet to do! So yeah, I know you called him a lurker and said he might be scum, but you’re still hard ignoring him and the content he has posted.

Quinn Fabray wrote: Blatantly misrepresenting my posts, as well as other posts that were made, pushing for an easier lynch (one of the two 'lurkers') for the day after, "of course everyone else that's actively posting that isn't Quinn is town-ish", you're definitely scum and I sincerely think you should be lynched this day.

I think I’ve successfully refuted every point where you “think” I’m “blatantly misrepresenting” your posts. You're more guilty on this account than I am.

I’m pushing for a lynch of either you or Noah, and I don’t know where I ever pushed for an actual lynch on Satana (Yeah I voted her but that’s entirely different).

The sentence “of course everyone else that's actively posting that isn't Quinn is town-ish” is entirely rhetoric and appears to be some attempt to represent my scumread on you contrasted with my townreads on Lauren and Kitty is entirely based on the fact that your name is Quinn? Use of rhetoric rather than logic is entirely scummy.

Unvote.

Vote Quinn Fabray

I'm fully comfortable with either this lynch or Noah's

by Tina Cohen-Chang Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:52 am

Formatting a post on this forum isn't much fun~~ Apologies to anyone who has a problem with reading it.

Also sorry for the broken URL tags, apparently they don't work as they do on PO~

by Ryan Murphy Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:50 am

Quinn Fabray (3) – Kitty Wilde, Lauren Zizes, Tina Cohen-Chang (L-2)
Sue Sylvester (0) –
Tina Cohen-Chang (2) – Santana Lopez, Quinn Fabray (L-3)
Noah Puckerman (0) -
Santana Lopez (0) –
Kitty Wilde (0) -
Will Schuester (1) – Sue Sylvester (L-4)
Lauren Zizes (1) – Will Schuester (L-4)

Deadline is Friday, June 28 at 07:00 GMT +0, approximately 2 days from now.

by Kitty Wilde Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:41 am

Tina Cohen-Chang wrote:
Concerning Quinn's post:

"I said "lurking" i.e. not posting, not "active lurking". I'm not interested in analyzing whether people are online or not (for all you know they just happen to leave the tab open even when they're not actually there, or they logged off and are reading the thread without actually being logged in; it's just not a reliable source of information at all)"

Completely devalues active lurking, which is actually perfectly valid information since it is clearly a more scum-motivated action. And who does this indirectly speak out in favor of? None other than our dear Noah.

Well it is valid, I have this tab open even though I'm not actually looking at it (although I do try to make a post every time I check, but distractions happen). Although if you keep looking at the topic and not actually make posts for an extended amount of time, it could be seen to be active lurking and therefore suspicious.

re: Quinn's reply post (making a separate quote doesn't sound fun)
You can buddy without actually talking to someone, just saying.
Pointing out the whole "easy lynch thing" I can agree with being scummy, although Noah said he'd get some proper reads or votes later, and I haven't seen anything from him yet!
' "of course everyone else that's actively posting that isn't Quinn is town-ish" ' - subtle attacking for a scumread
"you're definitely scum and I sincerely think you should be lynched this day." ~ someone's getting a little feisty! Honestly though it jumped out at me cause the tone seemed far more aggressive (and perhaps defensive) than the usual tone of Quinn's posts.

re: Tina's last big post (in which she votes Quinn)
Wait..you're saying that you explained why it's not an RVS vote and then later said you weren't being completely serious and then you say it's "not that unusual for RVS" (so it is RVS???)

"The sentence “of course everyone else that's actively posting that isn't Quinn is town-ish” is entirely rhetoric and appears to be some attempt to represent my scumread on you contrasted with my townreads on Lauren and Kitty is entirely based on the fact that your name is Quinn? Use of rhetoric rather than logic is entirely scummy."

Just want to point out that that's not what she really meant, she said that everyone posting actively besides her you have a town read on, nothing to do with her name. Quinn can explain it better though~

Oopsie! Forgot to bold when I carried it over from Word.

Unvote Quinn Fabray
Vote Noah Puckerman

Does anyone know the best way to format on this forum cause this is a bit annoying >: o

by Tina Cohen-Chang Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:03 am

To clarify:

I'm saying I characterized it as a non-RVS vote at the time of the vote in order to add pressure and attempt to propel the town out of RVS. But I'm sure you all can agree it lacked the substance behind it that posts at this stage in the game have. So while it had more reasoning behind it then the votes up until that point, it was still an RVS vote (albiet a semi-serious one).

"Just want to point out that that's not what she really meant, she said that everyone posting actively besides her you have a town read on, nothing to do with her name."

I know that's what she meant, but I really don't see why that's invalid. I mean its not like I have town reads on you or Lauren solely because you've been actively posting. So the attempt at making it seem to be an inconsistency via rhetoric rather than logic really bothers me.

I'm actually kinda bothered by the fact that Santana's RVS vote was on me, but hopefully it doesn't end up being a factor.

2 days left, activity in this game is really bothering me still.. ugh.

by Sponsored content

Less Pressure - Game Over

Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

VOTECOUNT 1.2

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over

Re: Less Pressure - Game Over