Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[ting =)]

/confirm.

[ting =)]

Vote: MacavityLock

Hi.

[ting =)]

You guys have just made me google "blood in coffee."

Apparently, putting menstrual blood in coffee is a hoodoo love spell.

[ting =)]

unvote. Vote:Panzerjager

For making a big thing out of a small thing.

[ting =)]

@GIEFF
It's as serious as you'd expect a vote on the second page to be.

@Panzer.
That's the thing, I didn't think it was a scum slip at all. It just seemed like a banter-y reply to GIEFF's banter at the time.

@MacavityLock.
I agree with Panzer that we should be going after mafia, not SK. More because of the fact that we

don't

know for sure we have an SK in this game than because of the point on cross kills though. I think I read an MD thread about hunting SKs before, I'm not sure if it discussed whether it's better for town to lynch mafia or SK though. I'm also not sure what the title was.

@Myko.
Post 55 and 58. If it was a random vote, why should craplogic even be an issue? Why apologize for faulty logic if it wasn't even a serious vote? Also, why'd you go back to random voting in post 55?

@Dourgrim.
OMGUS now means voting/attacking someone who's attacking you for no other reason than he's attacking you. Or at least, that's the behaviour I've seen it used to label in the games I've been in. I don't think I've ever seen it used to signify a joke vote.

[ting =)]

I'm really sorry guys, but it's late in my time zone and I've only had time to skim through. I promise an actual post with actual thoughts on players tomorrow.

Till then - please no more theory discussion to the point that my scroll bar is a mere dash? A number of the posts in the past few pages seem to be only tangentially related to issues actually relevant to the game. Don't get me wrong, I think discussion is great, but I also think there's a point when theory discussion can drown out actual game discussion. We're bound to hit it soon-ish at this rate.

Also, I don't get what the beef against the 'oldie card' is. I don't see how it's indicative of alignment in any way.

[ting =)]

Alright, I've just finished rereading the whole game. I have to run now though, but I'll be back in a few hours. I'll just post the notes I made, but they're rather indicipherable and were meant more for self reference than for showing. You can go ahead and ignore them.

I'll make a more coherent post about what I think of everyone when I get back.

---
Panzer-Myko. SK, all want to lynch mafia, slip.
24m, 36p, 37d, 42g, 43p, 49m, 62p, 63m, 64p, 67p,77go,

GIEFF-Dour. No vote. Joke/serious vote.
33d,45d,48d, 54g, 59d, 61g,

68d

, 77go,

Dour-GIEFF. Bad reaction(d). Bad attacking(g).
68d, 82g,

Dour-GIEFF. Active lurking, same point.
86d, 87g,

Dour-De-goat. Dour is nitpicky on little things.
48 - 53.

Myko-Panzer. Joke/serious vote. (note: gieff sees panzer as lying, not as making a mistake)
55m, 58m, 73t, 78m, 88p, 89g, 91p, 92g, 105g, 108go, 117g, 118go, 120p, 123g, 130p,

Macavity-GIEFF-Panzer. SK threat. Misrepresent.
43p,

75ma

, 76g, 81ma, 82g,

Goat-Dour. Why bring up cop?
77go - unanswered,

Spring-djek. defending?
97s,

Myko-Dour. Defending wrong logic.
90m, 95d,

Myko-GIEFF. Panzer not scum. (panzer and myko both backtracked from their earlier posts. why gieff not calling myko lying?)
137m, 140g, 141m, 144g, 145m, 146g, 151g,

GIEFF-Panzer. Did not lie.
158p, 160g,

Panzer-Gieff-Goat. Slips.
162g, 167su,

Spring-Myko. Acting townie.
176s,

random reread.
90m, 149go, 150b,

Random don't like.
90m - panzer's early game protown? 95d
94p - statement of obvious fact that doesn't answer gieff's 92 and myko's 93.
148s
153b

------------------------

observations till page 6:
Lots of nitpicking on tiny details. Lots of theory discussion that doesn't directly help in finding scum. Scum deliberately sidetracking convo? Theorizing to look like doing something? Scum bussing each other on minor details? Check who's doing a lot of talking before page 6 without saying anything relevant.

--
post page 6:

Reread on panzer, spring, dek. fuzzy on details. Panzer to decide if it looks more like a mistake or a lie.

Spring attack on dejk is iffy. Deliberately not joining in the bigger wagons/suspicions? Read spring/dejk posts in isolation.

Read dour-gieff discussions. Scum bussing on minor details for future disassociation?

Forgot about beyond_birthday till page 7. Reread previous posts.

NOTE: GIEFF ASKED A QUESTION IN 157.

Subgenius and Militant pop up in page 7. Did they v/la?

Myko defense seems genuine. Read earlier panzer-myko interactions.

[ting =)]

@Dour.
I'm sorry if it annoyed you. Posting was the fastest way for me to save my notes at the time.

@GIEFF.
My vote was page 2 serious. It wasn't serious enough that I would have carried the vote to a lynch based on what I had at the time, but it was a valid enough reason for a vote at page 2.


-----

Panzer and Myko.

I'm lumping my thoughts of these two together since a lot of the discussion they've joined in were related to each other. I'm not trying to draw a connection, it's just easier to lump them both together since they've had similar actions. Panzer's and Myko's initial votes and backtracks read like genuine mistakes to me. Myko's defense of Panzer also seems genuine. I haven't made up my mind yet about whether I think Panzer's latest 'slip' is really a scum slip or just an innocent mistake. The whole case on him about the slip hinges on the fact that he used the word

'townie.'

I'm not sure yet if it means anything, but I agree with myko that it seems rather blown out of proportion. The use of one word does not a concrete case make.

GIEFF, why are you interpreting Panzer's backtracking as lying but not myko's? The circumstances between the two are relatively identical, with both of them calling their votes alternately serious then jokey and then retracting them.

At the moment, myko's still holding his random vote on GIEFF. Do you mean to keep it myko, or is it still just a random vote?

-----

Dourgrim and GIEFF.

These two dominated the early discussion, but I'm really not sure what to make of it. They were arguing about GIEFF's

lack of a random vote

till well into page 4. While I think that was a valid enough reason for pressure early on, I have no idea why they dragged it on for so long. How serious were you two about the early discussions? Were the attacks just exploratory and meant for gaining information about others, or would you have been willing to follow the votes to a lynch?

-----

Springlullaby.

Her initial attack on Dejkha read like she just didn't want to join into the already existing wagons on the others and so looked for a reason to vote someone else. There was little reason for an attack on djekha, and there were easily more suspicious looking targets. Besides, I don't think there was anything wrong at all with Dejkha's post.

Her original FoS:

This also looks like you're overreacting. What it looked like to me, was Springlullaby casted a random vote and that's all.

This is my first time posting since I confirmed and if I joke voted, would you be on my case because it was after you said I haven't voted? This is the first chance I had to post in the game since day one started. Ever think the same for her?

FoS: Dourgrim because this early you seem awfully eager to write people off as possible scum

for things with obvious explanations.

For context, Dourgrim's FoS of you:

Hmmm... so springlullaby suddenly appears on the scene after I note she hasn't posted, and then casts a meaningless vote

(or at least it looks meaningless due to lack of explanation)

after I criticize GIEFF for not voting while posting,

despite there actually being a debate of sorts going on. Odd, somewhat suspicious, and definitely not helpful.

[u/]

FoS: springlullaby

Dourgrim FoS'd you because you random voted when he felt there was already significant discussion present to make a random vote moot. This (to him) made you look suspicious.
Dejkha's main point was that Dour was overreacting and reading way too much into what was merely a random vote. I think that was a valid observation.

They both cleared it up and elaborated as much in Dejkha's post number 2.

-----

People I know nothing about: Militant, Subgenius.

Of the two, I'd find subgenius more suspicious. He had no suspicions of Panzer at all till Feb 5, then jumped in with a vote on him at the point when heat on Panzer was picking up. Before that, his post number 2 was purely theory, and his post 3 reads like he didn't want to commit to a case on anyone.

----

Beyond birthday and goatrevolt don't stick out to me, as either town or scum. The people on top did.

[ting =)]

Man. This game moves fast.

The use of one word does not a concrete case make.

This is a horrible misrepresentation of my case. I was voting for Panzer long before this slip, and for very different reasons. This is simply another straw on the camel's back.

This is a horrible misrepresentation of MY case.

The whole

case on him about the slip

hinges on the fact that he used the word 'townie.'

In no way was I implying that it was refering to all your reasons for voting Panzer - I was only commenting on the point about whether or not his using the word 'townie' was a slip.

GIEFF, why are you interpreting Panzer's backtracking as lying but not myko's? The circumstances between the two are relatively identical, with both of them calling their votes alternately serious then jokey and then retracting them.

I don't think myko ever called his vote anything but a joke, and I don't see him having lied. I find him scummy, but for different reasons. You even said yourself about myko:

Are you now revising that opinion? Or are you referring to something else?

Are you now revising that opinion? Or are you referring to something else?

Another post from me, after that post:

@Myko.
Post 55 and 58. If it was a random vote, why should craplogic even be an issue? Why apologize for faulty logic if it wasn't even a serious vote? Also, why'd you go back to random voting in post 55?

I further point to your post 55, and goatrevolt's 56 - both posts where you thought myko might have been serious about his vote. I accepted his explanation that it was a mistake, and I think panzer's early joke-serious was a mistake too. My question to you was why you likewise considered myko's joke-serious stint as a mistake, but not panzer's.

These two dominated the early discussion, but I'm really not sure what to make of it. They were arguing about GIEFF's lack of a random vote till well into page 4.

This is another misrepresentation of what happened. The discussion may have started off about a random vote, but I continued it because Dourgrim's justifications for his vote of me were poor, one of which he later claimed was a joke, and another of which was shown to be inconsistently applied.

Your lack of a random vote was an issue until post 82, where Dourgrim took back his accusations. You weere discussing other things too, yes, but they were offshoots of the discussion of dourgrim's attack on you for your lack of a random vote (like how you felt dour's attack on you for it was unjustified). I don't think it's a misrepresentation at all. Simplistic, maybe, but accurate.

Were the attacks just exploratory and meant for gaining information about others, or would you have been willing to follow the votes to a lynch?

I don't like this question. If I was not willing to follow the vote through to a lynch, then the reason for my vote would have been to pressure Dourgrim, to see how he and others react to the possibility of him getting lynched. If I say "this is just a pressure vote, I don't mean to carry this through to lynch" then that takes away all the pressure, making the vote meaningless. That being said, I would not have been comfortable carrying it through to a lynch at the time I voted, as it was so early in the game.

That was exactly my question, yes - was it a pressure vote, or a vote with intent to lynch? Of course I don't think people should mention it when they're voting for pressure. Now that that whole disucssion is over though, I just wanted to know how serious you were about your vote at the time.

Beyond birthday and goatrevolt don't stick out to me, as either town or scum. The people on top did.

What does this mean?

I have no strong opinions about them.

[ting =)]

I've asked both you and ting to explain why you think myko's behavior was so similar to Panzer's, and I haven't received a response yet. I am still waiting for some detail there; if you are right, that's either another point against myko or possibly one fewer against Panzer.

See post 55-58. It's the stretch of posts where we're all wondering if myko was jokey or serious about his vote. I made a later post asking myko about it, his explanation satisfied me, as did panzer's about his joke/serious thing.

----

@subgenius, 238.
Thanks for explaining the timing of your vote. It helps.

Also,

As for Grieff, I appreciate his pointed questions and aggressiveness for now. I think that this aggressiveness has been responsible for pushing Panzer into what I feel was a legitimate mistake. On the other hand, I think Dourgrim has a point when he says that Grieff has a talent for prying scum tells out of posts that might not actually mean anything.

That sums up my thoughts of gieff rather well.

----

@goat-zilla.
I really don't think goatrevolt warranted a vote. I don't think zilla asking for a summary warranted a vote either. I tend to ask for summaries when I replace into a game, not because I don't want to read the previous posts, I do, but because it helps me look into the past posts in context of the current situation. Some people find that anti-town and unhelpful. Some don't. I think it's a null tell in either case, since I've seen both happen before.

[ting =)]

I'm sorry for the long no post guys, I've been busy. I know it's not an excuse. I'm reading the game now. Post soon-ish.

[ting =)]

unvote. Vote:Panzerjager

For making a big thing out of a small thing.

I didn't like this post because ting is effectively voting Panzejager for creating and stimulating discussion. To start to discussion you have to make a case and it would be hard to start if you only ever focused on the huge mistakes a player might make. By focusing on any possible mistake it gets discussion going and as Panzerjager said he was "propelling us out of random voting" which I see as good in a way. Bad in another way though...

You don't need to blow things out of proportion to create discussion. I point to the fact that panzer himself later withdrew his initial attack on myko that it was indeed a small thing, and that that was a more than valid reason for a vote.

[quote="militant]

Right now I would like to suggest more focused fire, starting now with a djekha wagon for example.

I dislike the way you so openly advocate a bandwagon so early in the day. I'm not defending djekha's actions but merely commenting on SL's actions. [/quote]
I disagee. Wagons are a good source of info, especially early in the day.

I have read the last pages or so. My comment on them is that I don't particularly like the dynamic of this town, there is plenty of talk and speculation but not enough true aggressiveness IMO.

You don't know who the town are in the group of people playing now unless of course your mafia. A minor slip perhaps.

??? It's pretty clear SL was refering to all the players in this game. You're reading scuminess where there's absolutely none at all. This is even worse than GIEFF's.

Then Ting, read my post, and ask does that apply to you.

She is saying that Goatrevolt is delibrately cutting of new information by not giving a SUMMARY of PAST events. Would you vote a player refusing to give you a summary based on him not giving you new information.

For Zilla and Ting's benefit, I'm going to post the definition of Summary

1. a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements.

I was refering to the act of

asking for a summary

as a null-tell. In no way was I refering to her vote on goat, or her case. Heck, I explicitly said:

I really don't think goatrevolt warranted a vote.

Did you miss that or is there something to your question that I'm missing? And yes, I understand what a summary means. Just because I'd ask for a 'brief abstract of previously stated..' doesn't mean that I wouldn't bother reading all the previous posts in the game - I'd still read everything. Like I said, when I read a game, I like to read the old stuff in the context of the current situation. Is there something wrong with that?

I honestly feel that he is playing kind safe, but it might be his non agression in a lot of brazen personalities. (Spring, Dour, GIEFF, Goat even. The rest seem considerably more aggressive than Ting.

Of the whole bunch I would vote Macavity as he bothers me the most, but he hasn’t posted in so long I don’t really see the point. Oh well, I’ll just wait to next time. The next scummiest person might be Ting in my book, but I need a bit more discussion to really decide. (And the return of cavity with his thoughts will also help.)

Why am I next scummiest? Because I'm 'playing kind of safe'? How is that a reason? Aggresion != scum hunting. I fail to see the point of aggression besides to generate reactions, and there are other ways of doing that that work just fine.

Noting the dynamic that has been created in response to my goat vote, and that he's flying under the radar, AND that he just switched his vote to someone for really poorly made reasons, I'm totally fine keeping my vote there.

Argument from consequences. Just because your actions had 'good' consequences doesn't mean that their reasons were valid to begin with. And I'd disagree on Goat flying under the radar, he's easily among the active players.

Case in point. You try to throw every little accusation back at the accuser. I also thought it was entirely obvious why scum are more likely to do it. Town may be suspicious of people who argue them, but scum are the paranoid ones that want to shut down any possibility they could ever possibly be scum, and tend to react very strongly against any and all arguments against them.

? Town and scum both have perfectly valid incentives to make sure they don't get lynched. Acting 'strongly against any and all arguments against them' is in no way indictive of scuminess. There's no reason any player should want to let an argument on them stand unless they're a jester.

You voted me because I told you "no, read the thread". That was the entire reason behind your vote.

Again, welcome to the party.

I still don't think goat warranted a vote for this. There are a lot of other players who didn't bother to give you a summary. I fail to see why that's scummy at all unless you think everyone is scum for it. His reaction was perfectly valid, it's a null-tell.

It's not emotion driven; your answers to my accusation that it stops information show you're not seeing my point on the issue. I'll say it again that I've never had so much trouble getting accountability from somebody. If accountability isn't valuable information, I have nothing more to discuss with you on that.

This, I'll agree on, as a fellow summary asker. But I still think how he reacted was a null-tell. You're both making the whole 'give-don't-give-summary' into a bigger deal than it should be.

I'm not scummy because you are unwilling to read my posts.

You're scummy because you're clearly expending more energy trying to get me to read your already carefully crafted posts, and are paranoid that you'll screw something up if you so much as summarize and get some of your contrived facts wrong.

Whoa. Where do you get

this

from? This is just baseless.

why don't you enlighten us all by explaining exactly why I am wrong.

I addressed this stupid logic earlier, though I may comment on the stupid psychological benefit you're trying to earn by using "us" instead of "me," trying to subliminally pair you with town and create an "us vs Zilla" mentality.

Again, whoa. People need to stop reading so much into the usage of particular words.

---
I'm going to ignore the rest of goat's and zilla's page 12 posts. I'm sorry guys, but I honestly think you both just took the little things way too far.
---

For now, Vote: Mykonian

For being the first person to even say Serial Killer (either he's mafia looking to create a scapegoat, or an SK trying to get the drop on anyone beforehand, I don't really see town introducing a serial killer, even as a jest, in RVS), for parroting goatrevolt's response to my opening, for general goading but non-commital behavior, and, mostly, because he asked me to.

Seriously? You ranted a while back about how the cases so far are all over little things, and you go and vote him for being the first to say serial killer? This is the first scummy thing I've actually seen you do. I was fine with the stuff before this. And yes, I read your reply to panzer, that's not what makes me iffy. It's the fact that you're voting him for something so small 13 pages into the game.

Panzer lied. He did not lie about something minor; he lied about the reasons for a vote. Not a random vote, a VOTE-vote. The next person who mis-classifies Panzerjager's vote for mykonian as a random-vote will get a policy-FOS from me for obscuring the past. Both have admitted the votes were not random, so stop misleading the town by calling them random.

In case this was addressed to me - I was calling panzer's vote and subsequent reasoning a mistake, like he said it was. Again, I'm not seeing how it's unreasonable to consider that panzer, like myko, was in no way intending to lie. I asked you a bunch of questions a while back about this. I'm not going to push them, they're too far back for me to see any point in raising a hassle over them.

But you said that "one word does not a concrete case make", implying that the word was my entire case. It was just a part of my overall case, which IS concrete.

You're taking me out of context again. My post for context:

The whole

case on him about the slip

hinges on the fact that he used the word 'townie.' I'm not sure yet if it means anything, but I agree with myko that it seems rather blown out of proportion. The use of one word does not a concrete case make.

Emphasis

about the slip.

I made it pretty clear I was talking about the whole bit with the slip, not about your whole case. And I don't think your panzer case was concrete at all. For reasons I've already said. A chunk of it is nitpicking over little things which could be read in a number of ways. I've said this before. A number of posts from the others would indicate they concur.

You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a mislynch.

You sure about that, champ?

Oh,

come on

. It's clear he thinks you're scum, and given that assumption, you'd be attempting a mislynch. I'm sincerely hoping I don't have to read another slew of posts over the usage of a single word.

add-on: I do.

Firstly number one. A mislynch is when you lynch a town member. You don't know who the town are unless your mafia so you have no concrete knowledge that Panzer is town unless you are mafia.

Secondly I disagree. As explained above this is about who you attack because you don't know the alignment of Panzer so you cannot in theory definitively say if his lynch would be a mislynch and this whole argument is about a mislynch:

See above. I don't like this post.

OK, mykonian, so you are voting me because you can't believe that a townie wouldn't see the weak points.

Or, in other words, you are voting me because you don't think I believe the logic I presented for my vote.

That is exactly why I voted for Panzer. Do you see that? You vote me for pointing out that Panzer was being untruthful about his reasons for the vote, and justify this vote BY SAYING THAT I AM BEING UNTRUTHFUL ABOUT MY REASONS FOR A VOTE.

That was not what Mykonian said.

I don't think the case I'm pushing is weak. Which of the following 4 points do you disagree with?

1. Townies use logic to figure out who is scum.
2. Scum fake logic to appear townie, as they don't need logic because they know who is scum and who isn't.
3. Therefore, being untruthful about the logic you used for a vote is scummy, and goes directly to the core of what differentiates scum from town: knowledge.
4. Panzer was untruthful about the logic he used for a vote.


And don't give me the "early-game" thing; Panzer lied about this continuously throughout the thread, as recently as just a few pages ago.

I know this was addressed to mykonian, but I'd like to give my take.

I agree with only premise two. Premise one is incomplete. Premise three is based on premise one. Mafia isn't a logic game. It'd be no more than a maths puzzle if it was. It's about reading people. Badly playing townie, scum, people making mistakes, would all have lapses in logic. A lapse in logic in no way indicates that a person is deliberately being untruthful. Even in real life a lot of people believe things which are illogical; if they tell someone about those things, that doesn't mean that they deliberately intend to lie to that person. You can't rely solely on lapses of logic to find scum. Which is why I don't agree with your conclusion (4).

Panzer lying would definately make him anti-town, and anti-town behavior is beneficial to scum, therefore, if they are lying, and there is no benefit to the town in the dishonesty, it is a valid reason to suspect them of being scum.

I still see nothing that definitively indicates panzer didn't just make a mistake, like he admitted he did. Granted, we're supposed to be suspicious of others in this game, but I can't see any reason to see the whole thing as panzer lying over him making a mistake.

Just about every case is so far removed from it's catalyst that it seems like nobody knows for sure how things got to where they are from where they started.

I've said it myself before, but I really just want to agree with it again. This is one of the more painful games I've ever played in.

Panzer is scum because he lied about his reasoning for a vote. That's the catalyst for the wagon, and that's the point I have been hammering ever since, and that I will continue to hammer until somebody convinces me it's wrong.

Please don't. There's no way either of us will prove whether panzer just made a mistake or was lying. Neither of us will be able to bring up anything that conclusively proves the other is wrong. Ditto for dourgrim bringing up the whole 'dourscum' thing actually. There won't be any logical proof for either side whether or not gieff made a mistake or was lying about him making a mistake. I don't see much point in either of these two points being brought up over and over.

but we've since defaulted back to the Panzer/mykonian alliance Zilla alludes to. I can see it being a very real possiblilty, and I think lynching one or the other of them is going to be the only way to confirm or deny it.

This is interesting. If panzer flipped town, what do you think it'd say about myko and why? If he flipped scum? If myko flipped town/scum - panzer?

The decision becomes, what do we like less: GIEFF's case or mykonian's defense?

I don't like this. Granted, they took up most of the game, but I still don't think that we have to pick one or the other. Why not neither? Or both? I don't see a dichotomy at all.

Was he lying intentionally, or was he giving inconsistent reports out of confusion/change in heart, etc.?

Thank you. That's a more succint question to gieff than what I've been asking since previous posts till now.

Faking the reason for his initial mykonian vote was intentional. The later lies and inconsistencies were not intentional. I suppose it is possible he was just genuinely confused, but he was so adamant for so long over so many posts that he knew it was a joke that I find that hard to believe. We can rule a change of heart out entirely; he didn't admit it was a serious vote until it was practically proven.

And thank you for the answer I was asking for since a while back.

All of this is hypothetical. I point to the 'I suppose' and 'I find.' I think he was confused throughout and maintain that it still reads like he made a mistake.

First of all at Zilla: The reason I do not respond to weak votes against me is that it is not the townie's job to look "protown" it is there job to "find scum."

I disagree with the first sentence. A townie's job is to make sure the town wins. If a townie dies, the town is one step closer to losing. It's well within a townie's job to do what he can to make sure he doesn't get lynched.

1. If a townie presents a flawed case, that isn't scummy if the person actually believes it is not flawed. I am not saying flawed cases are scummy, I am saying (for the 23rd time) that cases which are not believed by their presenters are scummy.

NO. That would mean that tunneling is perfectly okay. By this logic, if panzer had stuck to his original myko vote all the way till now (which I think we've all established was not a good vote), then you'd still see him as town. This would also indicate that people who flip flop a lot are scum. I change my mind every once in a while in games, as do others. In no way does this indicate scuminess.

I see your point perfectly fine. I'm not disputing the logic of your panzer vote. Our only disagreement is on whether or not panzer was deliberately lying, on which a large part of your vote rests on.

Woe be to the person who wants to know where everyone stands, but fear them not, for they may be shunned if you merely tell them to "read the thread." You can go unaccountable as long as you wish.

False. We're all accountable since we can't edit anything we've said. Anyone who "reads the thread" can find inconsistancies in our posts. We're accountable to anything we've said already. Just because someone doesn't want to bother giving a summary doesn't mean they don't buy their opinions and cases, which unless I'm mistaken is what you're implying in:

Lord, what a sin it is to attack someone reluctant to provide their own opinions.

Now, you are saying the attacks bore no fruit, suggesting that you don't think GIEFF and Panzer's back and forth produced anything useful. And you're voting on GIEFF's logic, despite saying his back and forth bore no fruit? And then, you even go so far to say Panzer looked like a victimized townie. Interesting how your vote was on the victimized townie.

You've taken his posts out of context. He didn't call panzer the victimized townie when he voted. He was suspicous of panzer, then changed his mind. The last two sentences imply that BB voted for someone he believed to be a 'victimized townie.' This is the first thing from you I don't really like. I otherwise agree that your points on BB as clarified at the end of 345 are valid though.

-----

Done till page 14. I'll finish catching up by the weekend.

[ting =)]

Ooops, messed up quote tag.

@dour.
I really, honestly, am sorry. I'm not normally this lurky in my games. I'll do pages 15,16 tomorrow; 17,18 on saturday, finish off by sunday. I'm free-ish this weekend, so I don't see any reason why I won't be able to.

[ting =)]

I'm not entirely sure if you're all that worried about my level of annoyance, but there it is.

I'm not. I mentioned being sorry because joining a mafia game entails a commitment, and I failed to honour it. Although I am also sorry for annoying you, if that means anything. =/

This is interesting. If panzer flipped town, what do you think it'd say about myko and why? If he flipped scum? If myko flipped town/scum - panzer?

I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable answering this in the thread for all to see. If we were to lynch Panzer or myko, it could be later misconstrued as me trying to lead the Town, and I'm not trying to do that at all. However, Panzer and myko pretty clearly linked themselves early on in this game, agreed? And, although I don't think links are foolproof ways of finding scum, they can be crucial at times and should be pursued when the case against the lynched and the link are both strong enough. In this case I believe both of those criteria to be applicable. Make sense?

Not really. I don't see how your answer to the question could be construed as leading the town in any way. I also fail to see how leading the town is wrong given as we're supposed to come to a consensus in order to lynch anyone. We're obviously going to assume links between players. I'm just curious what you think it'd say of myko/panzer if the other were lynched given as how you've formed one already. Myko 'defending' panzer could be scum defending scum, or scum-town, or town-scum. To rephrase my question, I just want to know which you think it is and why, really.

I don't like this. Granted, they took up most of the game, but I still don't think that we have to pick one or the other. Why not neither? Or both? I don't see a dichotomy at all.

That's because you've taken this out of context. The passage you quoted was part of a larger post analyzing GIEFF's case against the possible Panzer/myko link. As my vote (up until recently) indicated, I also believe BB to be a good lynch choice for today... just not the best choice. Therefore, obviously I'm not fixated on a dichotomy here.

No, you misunderstand what I was saying. Maybe my wording wasn't specific enough. I wasn't refering to today's lynch, I was refering to the exact same thing you were, and which I quoted - GIEFF's case and myko's defense. I see no reason why I can't decide that they both seem scummy, or that both of those strike me as coming from townies. The way you phrased your question:

The decision becomes, what do we like less: GIEFF's case or mykonian's defense?

implies that we have to decide between either supporting GIEFF's case or myko's defense.

This is wrong. This argument has been used before (I think by mykonian), so I'll respond to it.

Not believing your reasons for a vote

is scummy. However, this is hard to see (how do I know what another really believes?), so you have to look for clues

Inconsistency about the reasoning behind a vote is just one possible clue

, and the one I used to conclude that Panzer didn't believe his reasoning for his mykonian vote. Similarly, continuing to tunnel in on a case that has been proved to be ridiculous (as Panzer's initial vote of mykonian was proved) is another possible clue. "Could Panzer REALLY believe that mykonian is the serial killer?" Therefore, continuing to tunnel is NOT a viable strategy to protect the fact that the reasons your case is based on are bullshit.

Yes, tunneling avoids the "inconsistent reasoning" clue, but you are assuming that this is the only possibly way to find fake reasoning, which is not true.

I'm not denying the bold. What I've been saying all along is - how about cases where you're mistaken about your case and so take it back (or other such cases)? The fact that you take it back would imply that you don't believe it - when it was just a mistake all along. I think panzer believed what he was saying at the time, realized how messed up it all was, then took it all back. That's what it reads like to me. Which boils down to my original question really, what makes it seem more like a lie to you instead of a mistake?

I disagree. Like I've already said, this would mean that people who change their minds mid game are scummy just for the fact that they're indecisive. And the converse, people who stick to their gut beliefs no matter how dumb would be town simply because they're consistent with their voting reasons.

That was not what Mykonian said.

Yes, it was. Just in other words., as I said.

I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out.

He is saying that he thinks I DO see the weak points in my case, yet continue to push it anyway; i.e.

I don't believe the case I am pushing, i.e. he doesn't think I believe the logic I am presenting for my Panzer vote

I took myko's meaning to be - "Me and others have been pointing out to you time and time now the weak points in your case, but you're just ignoring them and pushing on anyway." Not that you don't believe to see your case - but that you're refusing to look at any point that disagrees with it. There's a fairly subtle difference. The last sentence in myko's post which you declined to include in your quote would suggest so.

I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out.

You simply refuse to see them.

Myko is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, in which case I've read his post wrong and take all this back.

I don't like this. Granted, they took up most of the game, but I still don't think that we have to pick one or the other. Why not neither? Or both? I don't see a dichotomy at all.

Agreed. It is a false dilemma, trying to get the town to think they must choose between one or the other: a Panzer lynch or a mykonian lynch. [/quote]
This was NOT what I was saying. There's a reason I quoted this bit from dourgrim when I made that point:

he decision becomes, what do we like less:

GIEFF's case

or

mykonian's defense

?

In no way was I talking about who should be lynched today when I made that point. See above. You're welcome to push

this

point if you want, but it's in no way mine.

----

Okay, that's all I need to reply to I think. Doing my catching up now. Post on my thoughts on pages 15 and 16 coming soon-ish.

[ting =)]

Sigh. I think I messed up a quote tag again in there, in the bottom. It should be:

I don't like this. Granted, they took up most of the game, but I still don't think that we have to pick one or the other. Why not neither? Or both? I don't see a dichotomy at all.

Agreed. It is a false dilemma, trying to get the town to think they must choose between one or the other: a Panzer lynch or a mykonian lynch.

This was NOT what I was saying. There's a reason I quoted this bit from dourgrim when I made that point:

the decision becomes, what do we like less:

GIEFF's case

or

mykonian's defense

?

In no way was I talking about who should be lynched today when I made that point. See above.* You're welcome to push this point if you want, but it's in no way mine.

--

*clarification: This is referring to when I made a similar point to Dourgrim. While fixing the quote tags I realized that 'see above' is rather vague.

[ting =)]

My other points are still unrefuted, and I don't see how you could refute them either. You were the first to mention an SK, and I've already said that's pretty cut-and-dry a possible scum move since we don't know for sure if there actually is one. As mafia, it creates a scapegoat. As the SK, it's trying to create a WIFOM where the SK shouldn't be the first to mention it, so someone else ought to be the SK.

...so, the first person to mention an SK in any game in any game is automatically scum? This is in no way a tell, much less a valid tell. At least, not one with the amount of credence you're putting behind it.

We still don't even know if there is an SK, but there's no reason for a townie to introduce that possibility, even as a joke.It changes the paradigm of the game in a way that is only helpful to town if there IS an SK, and the only way you would know that is if you WERE the SK.

Yes, because random votes

obviously

need to be backed by reason. You're reading too much into a random vote, just like the people who did it early game whom you criticized for arguing too much about minuitae. I can't believe this is still being brought up in page 15.

On general character during the game, you've basically been defensive of the person who was initially attacking you, to the point that it doesn't even really make sense. I really think that town is susceptible to OMGUS, and for good reason; if someone suspects you, and you're town, you're going to wonder if they're scum trying to frame you for a mislynch.

I don't like this view. OMGUSing someone is a fallacy. For commiting a fallacy, you'd see someone as more likely to be town? And if they don't, then they don't make sense are most likely scum?

So you don't think scum-GIEFF would ever bus or distance scum-Panzer? Is your suspicion of me really so strong that you are making nested assumptions based on it? I think Panzer is scum, but not so sure that I'm ready to proclaim with certainty that someone he strongly attacks is town.

I think this was a well raised point.

Was you saying "mislynch" a slip?

This, is not. Please stop with the reading so much into things. Granted, I don't have any control over what you think is relevant, but the amount of posts made over the discussion of possible slips is ridiculous.

Oh,

come on

. It's clear he thinks you're scum, and given that assumption, you'd be attempting a mislynch. I'm sincerely hoping I don't have to read another slew of posts over the usage of a single word.

the confusion if he was serious about me or not. He is not completely clear in this.

But I can't see benefit for scum in this.

Any point with 'i can't see benefit for (insert role here)' is based on assumptions and inherently wifom.

Ting=) ... [snip] All I can say is that nobody has really looked too deeply into him.

You can easily rectify that if you feel there's something wrong with it.

Macavitylock/qwints and ting =) are still flying under the radar.

Again, I apologize. I fully intended to be active when I signed up for this game. I've giving my thoughts on everything now though, you're welcome to pick my brain once I'm done with everything.

I don't think all lying is a universal scumtell, and I never said it was. I do think lying about the reasoning for a vote is scummy, and have explained why that is.

Just to clarify - you, myko and I have different issues on this. Mine is with the word 'lying' since you still haven't given me reason to believe that panzer lieing is more likely than panzer making a mistake. Myko has accepted panzer as lying, but is saying that not all cases of lying are scummy.

EBWOP: Also Myk's reaction to my request for a summary (seems subgenius is now in support too.)

Not wanting to give a summary. Is a pretty normal response. I still haven't seen anything particularly convincing from you to point that it's a scummy reaction. You seem to feel really strongly about the reactions of people to your asking for a summary, but I point to the fact that nobody else other than you seems particularly convinced of your arguments on it either as showing that they're not really conclusive. It's a null tell.

@gieff 376.
Your meta argument on panzer is the strongest argument I've seen you present against him so far. Also, wow. Researching someone's meta takes more effort than I've seen most people invest in a mafia game. Kudos.

I mean, you have basically told scum: If you stay by your argument, no matter how stupid, you look town to me. So either you are scum trying to validate your tunnel visioning on someone

OR any of your bad arguments because you "really thought that to be truth(para)" or your just a fucking idiot who told scum to take you to lylo and stick by their arguments as long as they are at least half baked and appear to be convinced that their argument is right.

The non strike through portion is actually a pretty good summary of some of the thoughts I've been bouncing round my head. I don't think it's the only explanation for some of the observations I've made of gieff, but it is one of them. The strike through I just plain don't agree with.

@BB's 384.
Ugh. I hate the 'I don't need to bother defending myself' vibe you give off. Or how you blatantly admit to looking scummy, shrug it off, and then give the impression that we should too. It's unhelpful. Also, anti-town. I think I've mentioned this already in my previous post.

[ting =)]

Maybe the weekend will give me the time to get out of this.

Or maybe ting=) will? What did you mean by "get out of this?"

I don't like what you're trying to imply in the first sentence. I still don't like how you try to read slips into everything like the second sentence.

anti-town=/=scummy

Yeah, that's why I said:

It's

unhelpful.

If you're town you're not helping at all with not defending yourself. You're not giving us any reason to think you're town, there's no reason we shouldn't assume otherwise.

Not to answer for people, but ting=) says he does it. He does also say he doesn't see the reaction of not wanting to give one as scummy though, but just because nobody in this town seems to get the logic behind it doesn't make it invalid. This isn't the only mafia game ever played. I know it works from other games.

This is true. And yes, it's invalid. You're applying 'not wanting to give a summary is scummy' as an absolute scumtell, but a tell is only relevant if scum are statistically more likely to do it. They're not. I point to the fact that, as has been pointed out, the majority of the players here haven't, and that in any other game you pick, I'm pretty sure it'd be the same.

GIEFF is definately tied to Goat, and this is unbelievable textbook chainsaw defense.

This is confirmation bias. Just because he, like goat, also disagrees with you does not make it a chainsaw defense.

[subgenius quote here]Nice non-committal post here amidst polarizing discussion. Did you even read the page you posted this on? People are changing their minds, votes are swapping around and there is plenty of juicy discussion here. I'm highly suspect of this recycled "we aren't getting anywhere" post during a very influential part of the game.

Yes. I had something typed out already, but this puts my thoughts better.

--

I don't like myko's newest posts. No time for actual reread now, I'll do it later.

[ting =)]

I'm not sure what that means really. Could you clarify?

[ting =)]

I don't think you'll ever really know with certainty that you're right in a mafia game. Mafia would be a pretty boring game if there was a way to tell for sure if someone is scum.

[ting =)]

Hey guys.

I posted in the v/la thread. Maybe I should have posted here too. In any case, my connection's back.

[ting =)]

If you're townie, and you really think that you've caught two or three scum, then please ask people to lynch you. Be a martyr. If I was confident that my death would catch two or three scum, I wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice myself.

If you do not throw yourself on the proverbial sword, than you are either not confident that you have "caught" two or three scum, or you are not town, and your accusation is one of scummy self-preservation. Which is it?

Wait,

what?

This is ridiculous. Nobody's death says anything about the validity of whoever they think is scum. If a person's argument doesn't convince me when he's alive, it won't convince me when he's dead, even if he flips town. Your calling for someone to 'martyr' themselves is horrible.

Ting: You noted my post regarding subgenius and suggesting your agreement with it. Then you did not provide your own opinion on the same topic that I attacked subgenius over. What is your take on Zilla?

re sub, I didn't provide my opinion because:

I had something typed out already, but this puts my thoughts better.

as in: I had my thoughts on the subgenius post typed out, read your reply to it, and then decided that they were similar to the point that I'd be repeating points that you already raised in a more succint manner.

re zilla - hold on, let me read everything first before I mention who I think are town/scum. Something in the further pages might change my mind. If you want a tentative opinion though, Zilla's not on my most-certainly-town-list.

TO THE REST OF THE PLAYERS: please don't just gloss over this entire conversation between GIEFF and I. If you agree with GIEFF's assessment of my play and therefore scumminess, please say so and point out why you agree. If you disagree, please say so and point out why you disagree. I am flat-out sick of explaining myself over and over again to a single player and getting absolutely no reaction from the rest of the players one way or the other. Seriously, this needs to be resolved, if only because I'm not enjoying the game when I constantly have to re-explain myself.

I disagree. I've said before that I don't really like how gieff nitpicks and plays with semantics. I just haven't decided yet if it's a dislike because I think he's scummy for it or if it's because I think he's town but he does it so often. I could see gieff going either way, really.

GIEFF's attack on you is pretty much the exact same methodology he and goat are using on me; construct some kind of illogical fallacy (Your stance on Birthday, my stance on Birthday/Goat) and constantly assert that it is truth.

No. Goat's attack on you is different from gieff's on dour. Gieff on dour read like nitpicking to the point of misrepresentation. Goat nitpicks but stays true. You'd obviously disagree, but that's how the two cases read to me.

I agree that players shouldn't ignore "scummy behavior." I have a question in return, though: if you don't think I'm going to be the lynch for today, and you don't want me to be the lynch for today, why are you going so far out of my way to prove my scumminess?

I don't agree with this. If we see scuminess anywhere, then we should always go out of our way to prove anyone's scuminess, even if they're not our top pick.

----

Okay, I have 2 pages left to go.

[ting =)]

Okay, I've read till page 30. Nothing much struck out between when I last stopped and then.

gieff wrote:

If you're townie, and you really think that you've caught two or three scum, then please ask people to lynch you. Be a martyr. If I was confident that my death would catch two or three scum, I wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice myself.

If you do not throw yourself on the proverbial sword, than you are either not confident that you have "caught" two or three scum, or you are not town, and your accusation is one of scummy self-preservation. Which is it?

Wait, what? This is ridiculous. Nobody's death says anything about the validity of whoever they think is scum. If a person's argument doesn't convince me when he's alive, it won't convince me when he's dead, even if he flips town. Your calling for someone to 'martyr' themselves is horrible.

Of course I knew Zilla wouldn't martyr herself. This post was meant to demonstrate the fact that Zilla was NOT actually confident that she caught two or three scum, and that her statement was one of scummy self-preservation, not one she actually felt was true. Note the 2nd paragraph where I asked her a question, giving her a choice between martyring herself or admitting she is not as confident about having caught scum as she claimed.

She did not answer.

Confidence in whether or not you've caught scum has nothing to do with your willingness to die. And a townie's death still says nothing about the validity of his statements. Whether or not you knew Zilla wouldn't martyr herself is irrelevant to the fact that you told someone to martyr themself. It's pointless and scummy.

[ting =)]

militant, ting, and subgenius have very little vote-changing. Are you more certain than the rest of us, or do you just not have as much interest in catching scum? ting's vote is still on Panzer, from post 38. That is shocking.

I'm waiting till I catch up with the whole game to cast my vote. I've said that before already. Catching up to the game is turning out to be harder than I thought though, you guys post a lot and quickly, a lot of it stuff that's already been said before.

All of my suspicions are based around the idea that Zilla is scum. Based on that idea, BB is town. Panzer and Mykonian are town. Springlullaby is town. You are probably town. Militant is probably town. Ting and Subgenius are 50/50. Dourgrim is probably scum. Qwints is probably scum.

How does zilla-scum make me 50% likely to be scum? I ask because I don't recall you mentioning any suspicions of me, and then this.

I did not want her to martyr herself.

I was demonstrating that what she said was not true.

Are you sure about that?

If you're townie, and you really think that you've caught two or three scum,

then please ask people to lynch you.

Be a martyr.

If I was confident that my death would catch two or three scum, I wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice myself.

I find scumlinking to be a fairly useful technique early on. It certainly isn't a perfect tool, but it often comes up with solid tells.

The amount of reading in this game is just ridiculous. I don't like panzer and dourgrim's implicit claim, however, that those with a lot of content are anti-town.

I have no idea what point, if any, you're making in this post.

Ting: I don't know why you are voting for Panzer. Are you still interested in his lynch? Why or why not? Out of BB/Zilla/Panzer, who are you willing to lynch and in what order would you prefer?

No, I'm not interested in his lynch. I'll move my vote once I manage to read through everything. If it makes you uncomfortable that my vote is on him, I'll unvote. I'm not particularly interested in either a bb/zilla or panzer lynch. If I had to choose someone from those three, I'd choose panzer. I agree with nearly nothing BB or zilla say, but neither has struck me as extremely scummy.

And ting, why the hell haven't you changed your vote since post 38? It is hard for me to believe that a player whose objective is to lynch scum would not use his vote.

See above. I don't want to cast my vote until I've caught up fully with the game.

Is it time to replace subgenius and ting yet?

You're skimming through the game and not at all reading. I posted 24hours before you said this.

Ting/Qwints I find scummy. Not really for the lurking aspect, as it's a long, fast-paced game with giant posts, but more for the lack of solid stances. Ting has made good points and comments, but has made little in terms of actual stances (actually, subgenius fits that category as well).

I understand your point, but I've mentioned before that I'm not going to mention any particular stances until I've finished reading the whole game. I'll mention what I think of everyone then. Whenever you've asked me for my stance on a particular person or situation though, I've been more than forthcoming in giving my thoughts

up till where I've read

.

[ting =)]

Okay, I skimmed through till the end. I'm really sorry, but I'm pressed for time now. I'll come back and reread the past few pages in detail later as well as post my thoughts on everyone.

I'll answer the pending questions for now:

I did not want her to martyr herself. I was demonstrating that what she said was not true.

Are you sure about that?

If you're townie, and you really think that you've caught two or three scum, then please ask people to lynch you. Be a martyr. If I was confident that my death would catch two or three scum, I wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice myself.

Yes, I am sure. Note the use of the word IF. It is a conditional command, meant to demonstrate that the conditional (Zilla is a townie, sure she has caught two or three scum) is NOT correct. That was my point.

You're missing mine. Or avoiding it.

It is a conditional command,

meant to demonstrate that the conditional (Zilla is a townie, sure she has caught two or three scum) is NOT correct.

That was my point.

I take issue with the bold because:

Your condition for zilla being town is - she martyrs herself. Your condition for her proving she's town is her killing herself. Again:

Note the 2nd paragraph where I asked her a question,

giving her a choice between martyring herself or admitting she is not as confident about having caught scum as she claimed.

She did not answer.

In case I wasn't clear before what my problem with this is, your choices are basically:

1. Kill yourself.
2. Admit your cases are crap.

I've mentioned multiple times why I don't like this:

1. Those are horrible choices.
2. One of the choices (kill yourself) wouldn't prove anything other than zilla is a moron who killed herself. Her proving that she's town(by dying) would no way validate her cases.

In short again, since I'm annoyed at repeating myself multiple times:

1. Telling someone, 'to prove you're town - kill yourself' is scummy.
2. [1] is pointless. Proving you're town doesn't prove your cases are right.

----

Maybe an unvote is in order? People see your vote on Panzer as legitimate, and are judging his wagon in that light, not realizing you haven't changed it since post 38. Or have you since decided that your vote has merit, and you like it on Panzer?

What page are you on now?

I've read everything properly till page 36. Skimmed till 40. If the vote bothers you, then yes, I'll

unvote.

It didn't seem like panzer would get lynched soon, I saw no harm in leaving it on him.

---

I'm a bit iffy on your position on Zilla. Here you say she hasn't struck you as extremely scummy, but earlier, you say she's not on your "most certainly town" list. What does that exactly mean?

Exactly what it sounds like. She doesn't strike me as extremely town, or extremely scum.

---

top 3:

I need a reread of militant, sub and qwints before I commit to a top 3. I can't recall their positions off the top of my head.

Of the people I feel I have a relatively good read on: gieff, SL, panzer.

[ting =)]

No. Clarification:

My top 3 out of the people I have a relatively good read on.

That's the reason I mentioned needing a reread of militant, sub, qwints - they're the people I don't have a good read on.

[ting =)]

You wouldn't have to repeat yourself if you realized that I was not telling Zilla to kill herself. I was demonstrating to her (and to everyone else) that her statement "I am sure I have caught 2 or 3 scum" is incorrect.

Do you really think it is plausible that I am scum and was hoping I could convince town-Zilla to self-vote? Really?

How, exactly, were you demonstrating that it's incorrect? Show me. Your conditional for proving that 'zilla is sure' is that zilla kills herself. It demonstrates nothing, because either:

1. zilla doesn't kill herself.
2. zilla kills herself, which still proves nothing.

It doesn't demonstrate anything because your clause for her statement to be true is absurd, and unlikely to happen.

Do you really think it is plausible that I am scum and was hoping I could convince town-Zilla to self-vote? Really?

I think it's plausible you're scum making a pointless case that was meant to sound like it conclusively proved that zilla was unsure about her cases, when in fact, it doesn't demonstrate anything.

If you love chocolate so much, then why don't you marry it?

Funny I was about to post an analogy. Here's mine:

John and Joe, are from religion A and religion B. They've been arguing over who's religion is right for a while now. John says to Joe, "Alright, kill yourself. If your religion is right, you go to heaven. If it's wrong, you go to hell."

It's pointless, because either:

1. Joe doesn't kill himself. John (that's you), goes, "Aha! You didn't kill yourself. You're obviously not sure about your religion."
2. Joe does kill himself. It still doesn't prove religion B is right.

Also, sure, let's use your analogy too:

If you love chocolate so much, then why don't you marry it?

Can you really not see the fallacy? Let's try it in a conversation:

ting: I love chocolate.
gieff: No, you don't love chocolate.
ting: I

do

love chocolate.
gieff:

If you love chocolate so much, then why don't you marry it?

ting: That's a stupid argument. Your conditional for me to prove that I really

do

love chocolate is that I marry it? Really? So either:

1. I marry chocolate - you accept that I really, honestly love chocolate.
2. I don't marry chocolate, even though it's

obvious

that this was a perfectly reasonable conditional for proving my honesty. Since I don't marry chocolate, I obviously don't love chocolate - I was lying.

Yes, I'm obviously going to marry chocolate. It's not at all absurd to expect me to marry chocolate to prove I was telling the truth.

Basically,

Would you conclude that a child who asked the above question was really advocating for the chocolate-lover to marry chocolate?

I would conclude that the child who asked the above question just made a fallacy. Which is especially bad since said child used that fallacy to convince the other children in the playground that they should hang one of their number by a noose from the monkey bars.

---

ting and sensfan, how close are you to finishing your re-read? It would be ideal to decide on a lynch candidate today, so we can work out the claims and the actual lynch in the next three days.

I'm behind on several games ever since I've had more work in RL. Also, this particular game moves really fast. Still, I'll set time up in the weekend to finish this off.

---

And ting, THIS is why I wanted you to unvote. Dourgrim would have just accidentally hammered Panzer if your vote was still on.

I honestly doubt that.

---

Dourgrim, Sensfan, and ting; we still need your top 3.

I gave my tentative top 3 already. Go ahead and put them in your top 3 listing; if my top 3 changes after I'm done reading, just change them.